Vaccines Could Help Reduce Asymptomatic Virus Transmission – Although More Evidence Is Needed 06/01/2021 Raisa Santos Numbers suggest that the Moderna vaccine reduced asymptomatic transmission by about two-thirds. The data set was very small, however. Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine appears to be able to reduce infection and therefore transmission of the virus, a Harvard expert has told Health Policy Watch, albeit despite the currently limited data sets. Although both vaccines appear to have incredibly high efficacy (94.1% for Moderna and 95% for Pfizer) in terms of preventing those vaccinated from becoming ill with COVID-19, policymakers have cautioned that people thus immunized might still be able to transmit the virus to others – and public health policies need to take this into account. Peer reviewed Phase 3 clinical trial results for the Moderna vaccine, published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, now suggest, however, that vaccination also reduced asymptomatic transmission by about two-thirds, in the case of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine – although the numbers examined were small. Pfizer/BioNTech, however, said that their Phase 3 data did “not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection” and that “a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present … will be reported later.” “It would be safe to conclude from the very limited findings that the mRNA vaccine has some effect on infection and therefore probably transmission, but it’s a pretty small data set to hang your hat on“, Marc Lipsitch, Professor of Epidemiology and Director of the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told Health Policy Watch during a media advisory on Tuesday. Pfizer, which did not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection in this trial, will report the data when it is available. In the Moderna study, there were just 15 asymptomatic cases of infection in the mRNA-1273 group of about 14,000 who received the vaccine, or about 0.1% of participants at the time that the second vaccine dose was administered. In comparison there there were 39 symptomatic cases in the placebo group of a comparable size, or about 0.3% of participants – suggesting that even one dose of the two-dose vaccine had already reduced asymptomatic cases by roughly one-third. That is extremely encouraging to policymakers looking at how vaccination of large numbers of people can also halt the broader spread of infection. But this data remains “hard to interpret, for a number of reasons”, Lipsitch said, noting that: “People getting their second dose could have been infected before the first dose kicked in. Moreover, the second dose probably adds more protection compared to the first dose. He added that in addition, “we don’t know the duration of that effect, or the degree to which the vaccine changes the amount of virus in [people].” Regardless of Vaccination – Continue Testing Regardless, Lipsitch still advised governments to continue testing requirements for traveling, as opposed to banking entirely on vaccination for future out-of-country movement. “It’s not completely protective so testing would be more meaningful than the vaccine,” he said. Though more research is needed to confirm how long immunity from SARS-CoV-2 lasts, Lipsitch estimated that the immunity lasts at least three months, depending both on the product and on individual contribution and responsibility to be protected for longer. With new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerging in the United Kingdom and South Africa, there must be redoubled efforts to both control the spread of COVID-19 and to vaccinate as many people as possible. “Anything you can do to delay the spread of this new variant virus will make control easier and will help us in a race to get more people vaccinated before [this variant] becomes more common.” This may be a challenge in coming weeks, with the new variant 50-70% more transmissible, but ongoing vaccinations and further research gives hope that herd immunity can be reached. Said Eric J. Rubin and Dan L. Longo of the NEJM, regarding the new vaccines: “What appears to be a dramatic success for vaccination holds the promise of saving uncounted lives and giving us a pathway out of what has been a global disaster.” Image Credits: Moderna, Pfizer. People Who Have Had COVID Can Delay Vaccine Up To 6 Months, Says WHO 05/01/2021 J Hacker Warning: Attempt to read property "post_title" on null in /home/clients/58f2a29976672af522a8f4d82ffa28b6/web/wp-content/plugins/better-image-credits/better-image-credits.php on line 227 An NHS worker in North London receives a COVID-19 vaccine as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks on. WHO has joined other bodies and public health figures in saying that there is no scientific evidence for a delay in a vaccine’s second dose – as per the recent United Kingdom policy decision. People who have recently had a confirmed COVID-19 infection can choose to delay vaccination, so as to allow others who are not immune take advantage of initial procurements, WHO has recommended. Following WHO’s approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine last week, its strategic advisory group of experts (SAGE) said that if a person has had a PCR documented SARS-CoV-2 infection within the last 6 months, they may choose to hold off on being vaccinated until nearer to the end of that period. “SAGE recommends that COVID vaccination be offered regardless of a person’s history of asymptomatic or symptomatic of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” SAGE’s chair Dr Alejandro Cravioto said at a media briefing on Tuesday, where he announced the body’s recommendations for emergency use of the vaccine. He added: “Available data currently indicates that symptomatic reinfection within 6 months of initial infection is rare.” As a result, people who waive their initial opportunity to be inoculated would encourage the use of the first available vaccines for those who have not yet been exposed to the virus. Also at the briefing, WHO stated that there was no scientific evidence to support a delay of more than 6 weeks when administering a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, joining the manufacturer itself and the White House COVID Task Team advisor Dr Anthony Fauci in criticising the UK’s decision to delay second doses by up to 12 weeks. “It is important to note that there is very little empirical data from the trials that underpin this type of recommendation,” Dr Joachim Hombach, executive secretary of SAGE, said, acknowledging that individual countries may need “to be even more flexible in terms of the administration of the second dose”. The UK decision was taken in light of surging rates of new infections, which are now among the highest in the world. WHO’s SARS-CoV2 Investigative Team Members Turned Away By China In Last Minute Foulup Over VISA Approvals 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & J Hacker BREAKING – Two members of a 10 person WHO-sponsored mission to China to investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus were turned away at China’s doorsteps after official approvals that WHO understood to be finalized were held up at the last minute. One member has turned around and is now returning home, while the second remains stuck in transit in a third country. Eight other members of the team were told to delay their departures altogether, WHO confirmed on Tuesday. “Over the past 24 hours, members of the international scientific team on COVID-19 virus origins began travelling from their home countries to China,” Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated at the WHO press briefing. “This was as per arrangements jointly developed between WHO, the Chinese government, and the countries for which the team was meant to travel through,” he clarified. “Today, we learnt that Chinese officials have not yet finalised the necessary permissions for the teams arrival in China.” Indicating that WHO had instructed the other eight team members who were not yet airborne to cancel their journeys for the time being: “We did not want to put people in the air, unnecessarily if there wasn’t a guarantee of their arrival in China.” WHO’s executive director of health emergencies, Dr Mike Ryan said that it had become “clear that the necessary approvals had not been gotten, specifically in regards to visa clearances”. “We were all operating on the understanding that the team will begin deployment today,” and explained that based upon that understanding, two members of the team had already begun travelling yesterday. Ryan added: “The two colleagues who have been travelling: one has been turned around and has a reasonably short journey home. The other will stay in transit in a third country, awaiting further details.” Night view of Wuhan, Hubei, China. Neither he nor Dr Tedros clarified which two team members had actually been in transit when their entry to China was denied. The WHO officials expressed hopes that the holdups were the result of a “logistic and bureaucratic issue” that could be resolved quickly. Dispatch of the team has been long-awaited by many WHO member states, after months of delays in the launch of the mission which was mandated by a World Health Assembly resolution in May. WHO finally named the investigative team in late November. The Organization also published outlines of a Phase 1 and Phase 2 study for the virus origins investigation. In December, WHO officials said that, the team would travel to Wuhan in January. Speaking at Tuesday’s briefing, however, Dr Tedros said: “I’m very disappointed with this news, given that two members have already begun their journeys and others were not able to travel at the last minute. “I have been in contact with senior Chinese officials, and I have again made it clear that the mission is a priority for WHO, and the international team have been assured that China is speeding up the internal procedure for the earliest possible deployment.” Mission Aims To Resolve Mystery of Virus Origins The first clusters of human infection with the SARS-CoV2 virus surfaced in Wuhan China in December 2019, around a seafood market that also sold wild animals for slaughter, and it was presumed that these first infections had passed from animals to people working or shopping at the market. But in the following months, the origins of the first human infections became far less clear. It emerged that some of the people first diagnosed with the virus in Wuhan had not had any contact with the market. The virus has been traced to a family of coronaviruses that circulates naturally in bats in a province of southwestern China, hundreds of miles from Wuhan. But how and where the virus may have lept to humans remains more of a mystery. Some critics have suggested that it could have escaped in a biosafety failure from a Wuhan virology laboratory where extensive coronavirus research was in fact taking place, however WHO does not list this as one of its leading concerns. Meanwhile, China’s state-controlled news channel began to construct an alternative narrative, claiming that the virus may not have originated in China at all. Even if the virus did originate outside of the country, WHO has repeatedly insisted that any epidemiological investigation must begin with the first cluster: those found in Wuhan. Those assigned to the delicate task of discerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 include prominent public health figures and animal health experts from across WHO’s Member States. Marion Koopmans – the virology professor leading research into the Dutch outbreak on mink farms – and former UK deputy chief medical officer John Watson are both set to travel to Wuhan. Prominent British zoologist Peter Daszak, who has a history researching bat coronaviruses in southeastern China and who is also president of the US Ecohealth Alliance, will also be dispatched. Daszak will also head The Lancet’s independent COVID-19 Commission Task Force, which some independent experts say might have an even better chance of fully investigating the origins of the coronavirus than the WHO team. If this task force never sets foot in China, it will still have the advantage of not being beholden to Beijing: a powerful actor in WHO’s member state governing body. Other experts are traveling from Australia, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, Russia, Japan, Qatar, Viet Nam and the USA. US-China Tensions Lend Mission Strong Geopolitical Dimensions Along with China’s resistance and WHO’s response, the US administration of outgoing President Donald Trump also created a platform for itself in the dispute, accusing WHO of bias and blaming China for the spread of SARS-CoV-2. At a November session of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the deputy director of the US Department of Health and Human Services charged that the just-published terms of reference for the investigative team were “not negotiated in a transparent way with all WHO member states”. Garrett Grigsby then went on to say that the terms failed to fulfill the original WHA mandate, adding that “understanding the origins of COVID-19 through a transparent and inclusive investigation is what must be done” in order to meet that mandate. WHO officials have said that they are regularly consulting with the missions of other governments in Geneva, and that the study process and findings will be transmitted transparently. And while the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden may lower the accusatory tone against Beijing, there is building pressure from other European and Western Pacific countries applied to WHO to push harder on the Chinese government. Whether out of deference to Beijing or a realistic assessment that such action would not achieve anything, Dr Tedros and his team have so far resisted naming and shaming Beijing publicly. There will be no denying the embarrassment to Beijing of the mid-air turnaround of investigative team members, however. Image Credits: pxfuel.com, Arend Kuester/Flickr. Israel Approves Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine – First Country Outside North America 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher The mobile station, which opened Friday in a large city park, allows Israeli citizens and residents over the age of 60 to walk in and be vaccinated on the spot. BREAKING – Israel’s Ministry of Health on Tuesday approved the administration of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, making it the first country outside of North America to greenlight the US-based startup’s candidate. The announcement by Moderna said that deliveries of the vaccine to Israel would begin already in January – sharply advancing a schedule that was originally to have begun in March. “First deliveries are expected to begin shortly,” the press release stated, noting that “Israel is the third country for which Moderna has received authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine” following the US and Canada on 18 and 23 December 2020 respectively. The European Union (EU), Singapore, UK and Switzerland are also reviewing the candidate. Moderna’s vaccine is based upon a novel mRNA technology similar to that being used by Pfizer/BioNTech, already being deployed in a number of countries worldwide. The vaccine was approved against the specter of mounting COVID-19 infections in Israel, despite the massive vaccine campaign already underway: more than 1 million people have an initial Pfizer vaccine dose. Israel’s average rates of new infections, are among the highest in the world currently, with Switzerland holding one of the highest rates in western Europe. While the campaign has placed Israel at the top of the list of vaccine doses administered per-capita, it is racing against time to beat back infection rates by vaccinating more people. Israel’s average rates of new infections – which are among the highest in the world currently – are running at about 66 people per 100,000, as compared to 64 per 100,000 in the United States and 82 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom. Israel has secured around 6 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine. Together with another large order secured from Pfizer, the two vaccines should be sufficient to vaccinate most of the country’s 9 million residents even before a locally-developed vaccine – currently in Phase 2 trials – becomes available, most likely in the summer. Switzerland Delay of Moderna Vaccine Approval – Doses in Visp Can Ship Immediately To Israel Ironically, the Moderna vaccine will be imported to Israel from the Swiss-based firm Lonza, where hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses were already in production in December at the company’s manufacturing facility in Visp. In light of the Swiss and European delays in approving the Moderna vaccine, ready-to-use vaccines can be shifted to Israel for the time being, which is eager to get its order right away. Swiss approval of the Moderna vaccine by the national regulatory authority, Swissmedic, has lagged behind that of the Pfizer counterpart, which was approved by Swissmedic in December. That is despite the fact that the expert panel of the US Food and Drug Administration gave the Moderna vaccine an even higher vote of confidence than it did the Pfizer candidate, when it reviewed both vaccines in meetings only a week apart last month. While the US and China have already rolled out more than 4.5 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines, and Israel and the UK have reached or exceeded the one million mark, the rest of Europe is moving much more slowly. Switzerland’s slow start to its vaccination campaign has been the subject of sharp criticism. And among European countries, the number of vaccines administered by Switzerland have so far been negligible. Only half of the country’s Cantons have even begun their campaigns – which major efforts only set to kick off in some regions, such as the heavily populated and heavily infected Canton of Vaud, bordering Geneva, next week. The slow Swiss start to its own national rollout has become a growing focus of criticism, particularly in light of Switzerland’s high infection rates. At about 40 new cases per 100,000, Switzerland has a new infection rate that is one of the highest in western Europe outside of the United Kingdom. “In another ten days, all of the Israeli population over the age of 60 will have been vaccinated – our vaccination programme is a fiasco that is costing lives every day and will continue to destroy still for months our economy,” Swiss lawmaker Philippe Natermod, vice president of the Swiss Freel Democratic Party, (PLR) and a member of the Swiss Federal Council, lamented in a recent Tweet. Dans une dizaine de jours, toute la population israélienne de plus de soixante ans sera vaccinée. Notre programme de vaccination est un fiasco qui coûte chaque jour des vies et détruira encore pendant des mois notre économie. #yaka https://t.co/ScMhAOXXRQ — Philippe Nantermod (@nantermod) January 1, 2021 Last week, in an exclusive interview with Health Policy Watch, a senior scientist at the University of Lausanne also complained about the unnecessary loss of lives as well as lifelong cases of COVID-related disability that would occur as a result of the delayed vaccine rollout. “The Department of Health doesn’t seem to understand that in just three weeks of delay, with 4,000 new infections per day, 100 will die everyday. That means in three weeks, more than 2,000 people will die unduly,” said Dr Pierre Goloubinoff, a biologist who has been doing research on COVID-19 treatments, as a result of the pandemic. “If we could do a vaccine blitz, and vaccinate all of the high-risk population in a month, in terms of the economy it would be completely liberating.” Switzerland has also been criticised for carrying out far too few tests to adequately chart the spread of coronavirus. Switzerland has ordered approximately 13 million COVID-19 doses: 4.5 million doses from Moderna, 5.3 million from AstraZeneca, and 3 million of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. But in the absence of a Swissmedic approval of the Moderna vaccine, only the Pfizer vaccine doses are approved for use. And only 107,000 doses of that vaccine have been delivered so far. Vaud’s Health Minister Rebecca Ruiz told Swiss Radio RTS that regional authorities have also been left to fend for themselves in terms of setting up an adequate vaccination infrastructure – after requesting help from the army to set up mobile vaccination units. “But our request was refused, so we are left to our own devices”, she pointed out. In a series of messages conveyed by the Swiss Mission in Geneva to UN international organizations, Swiss health authorities said that the initial phases of the vaccine campaign would be focused on people over the age of 75 living in care homes, as well as health workers, in light of the limited vaccine supplies. The statements also pointedly stated that the vaccine campaign is of unprecedented logistical complexity. Image Credits: Our World in Data, Our World in Data. UK Delay of Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose – A Risky Strategy That Could Give Rise To More Virus Mutations, Some Experts Warn 04/01/2021 Madeleine Hoecklin The administration of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in mid-December. The United Kingdom’s decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being rolled out en masse in the nation is a risky strategy – not only for those getting the vaccine, but also in terms of the longer-term public health impacts such delays could have in terms of future SARS-CoV2 mutations, some experts are warning. Administering a weakened vaccine formulation, as a result of long delays between the required two vaccine doses could open the door for the more rapid evolution of SARS-CoV virus, including mutations resistant to the vaccines only just now being deployed en masse, several leading virologists have said. They spoke in the wake of Britain’s decision on 30 December to postpone the administration of the second dose of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine by as much as 4 to 12 weeks, so that more first doses could be administered right away. Delaying the second dose has the potential to generate resistant spike variants that evade the antibody responses induced by vaccines, tweeted Paul Bieniasz, a British-American virologist at Rockefeller University. “Generating a pool of hosts with just the right amount of neutralizing antibody to apply selection pressure, but also maintain sufficient levels of partially antibody-resistant virus to allow onward transmission is key here…If we let immunity wane for a little while, say 4 to 12 weeks, we just might hit the sweet spot” to generate vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV2 variants, Bieniasz added. Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist. pic.twitter.com/IVU1COZPof — Paul Bieniasz (@PaulBieniasz) January 2, 2021 While the UK’s novel attempt to provide some form of broad population immunity as fast as possible is laudable, the experts says, potential negative impacts on the mutation of the virus, and thus on vaccine effectiveness, could offset the benefits. “The most credible arguments…are: a) the possibility that ‘partial immunity’ will spawn harmful mutations; b) concern that delay means more people won’t return for 2nd dose; c) whether change in vaccine schedule will lead to more vaccine hesitancy,” said Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at University of California at San Francisco, in another series of Tweets. UK Was First In Pfizer Rollout – But Stretched Resources Leave It Hunting For More Doses The United Kingdom was the first country in the West to issue an emergency authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, followed by the launch of the mass vaccination campaign on 8 December, beginning with health workers and older people. So far, the vaccine has been administered to about 1 million people nation-wide through the National Health Service, with second shots due three weeks later. The total number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered globally, as of January 4. The decision to prioritize the administration of the first dose to as many at-risk individuals as possible over providing the two doses according to the recommended schedule was made amid the spread of a variant strain of SARS-CoV2 with a higher rate of transmission and higher viral load. These measures were justified as “allow[ing] more people to benefit from the protection provided from the first dose during the roll out phase,” states the updated UK guidelines “Greenbook.” An accompanying statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), makes the case, saying that in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, vaccine efficiency would still be at least 70% and possibly as high as 90%, from about two weeks after the first dose, based on models of the clinical trials undertaken so far. But with the absence of clear data on the length that protection from the first dose lasts, Britain’s decision could have dangerous ramifications, leaving millions of people with incomplete or waning immunity, other independent experts pointed out. “There are good reasons for giving the second dose. It is likely that the second dose is needed to generate long lived and strong immunity,” tweeted Florian Krammer, professor at the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “But it will likely also drive affinity maturation of antibodies. This will make the antibodies stronger, and potentially will allow them to better cope with new variants.” Moncef Slaoui, head of the US Government’s Operation Warp Speed rollout of COVID vaccines in the US, also criticized Britain’s decision in an interview with CBS “Face the Nation,” saying: “We always said that these vaccines would be developed on the basis of science and all decisions would be made transparently on the basis of data. Changing the decisions made…which was to give two doses of vaccine – the second dose gives you ten times higher immune response than the first – without any data, I think would not be responsible.” Meanwhile, Pfizer and BioNTech warned in a joint statement released on Monday that “the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design.” Mixing and Matching Of Vaccines also Emerges as an Issue Last week British regulators also became the first to approve a vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, which is also a two dose regimen – based on a more conventional adenovirus vector technology, and also more temperature resilient than the sensitive Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which requires ultra cold storage. British regulators have also suggested that they might allow for the mixing of different vaccine brands, as well, in some situations. According to the UK’s updated vaccination guidelines, in cases “where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule.” But while the guidelines offer vaccine mixing and matching as an option, this should only take place on very rare occasions and “every effort should be made to give [the patient] the same vaccine,” stressed Mary Ramsay, head of immunizations at Public Health England. The US media, meanwhile, has overplayed the impacts of the “mix and match” vaccine option as a part of UK vaccine strategy, Fiona Godlee, editor of The BMJ was reported to have said in a letter to the New York Times. Godlee stressed that the strategy was not a recommendation, but rather a strategy of last resort, the BBC reported. Godlee demanded that the New York Times print a correction to its previous article, which had stated that: “Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match vaccinations, Worrying Experts”. Image Credits: Flickr – Province of British Columbia, Our World in Data. India Approves 2 Vaccines For ‘Restricted Emergency Use’ Ahead of Phase 3 Trial Data 04/01/2021 Menaka Rao Dr VG Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), has said that two COVID vaccines have been approved for emergency use. He refused to take questions from the press following the announcement, however. Delhi – India’s chief drug regulator approved two COVID-19 vaccines for “restricted emergency use” in the country on Sunday, opening the doors for a mass vaccination campaign against COVID to begin in one of the world’s largest countries, and a lower middle-income country at that. However, some watchdog groups said that the review process leading up to the government’s approval had lacked transparency – and in the case case of one locally-developed vaccine, Phase 3 trials had not been completed. The approved vaccines include the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, to be manufactured at large scale in India by the Serum Institute, and an indigenous vaccine developed by India’s Council for Medical Research, and to be produced by the Hyderabad company Bharat Biotech. While the AstraZeneca vaccine was also approved last week in the United Kingdom, Indian government approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine came before Phase 3 trials had even been completed, prompting criticism over a lack of efficacy data. The fact that Bharat Biotech has not completed its Phase 3 trials, means that India will now join the ranks of China and Russia as the only countries to have approved vaccines without Phase 3 clinical trial data. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Dr VG Somani, said that the drug regulatory body approved the vaccines after “adequate examination”. Approval of the two vaccines was recommended by an expert committee of doctors who examined data from the clinical trials. The Indian government plans to first immunise 30 million healthcare workers. In this first phase, the government also plans to immunise about 270 million people above the age of 50, and those younger with comorbidities. The vaccine will be given free of cost as promised by India’s Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan. Kudos to Hon’ble PM Sh @narendramodi ji for re-establishing India as the vaccine capital of the world !Anti-national comments & cynicism of the Opposition notwithstanding, @WHO has welcomed the Indian approval of both #COVISHIELD & #COVAXIN ! Roll up your sleeves everyone ! pic.twitter.com/UqLPgWrwDi — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 While the Serum Institute vaccine was granted permission for restricted use in emergency situations “subject to certain regulatory conditions”, the Bharat Biotech vaccine was approved “as abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode.” The Bharat Biotech vaccine was developed the Indian Council for Medical Research, a government research body. No Phase 3 Trial Data While the AstraZeneca approval relied upon Phase 3 data gathered abroad, India’s Serum Institute has not yet submitted complete data from the AstraZeneca trials being conducted in India, critics also said. Scientists and other experts questioned the meaning of the approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine while still in “clinical trial mode”. They warned that a hasty approval process could stoke vaccine hesitancy or even fuel anti-vaccine sentiments. India now joins ranks with Russia and China for approvals to #Covid19 vaccines in the absence of efficacy data sets 😳 🙄 — Anant Bhan (@AnantBhan) January 3, 2021 Phase 3 trials are usually double-blinded, with one arm of the trial participants receiving the vaccine, and the other arm getting a placebo. In case of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, the two arms are compared to see which group had participants that did not suffer from COVID-19. The extent of protection provided in the vaccine group determines its efficacy. In terms of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the DCGI relied on the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity (the ability to induce immune responses) data generated on 23,745 adult participants from the UK and Brazil which showed vaccine efficacy of 70.42%, the govenrment statement said. The efficacy results were published in The Lancet earlier in December. The Serum Institute in India is still conducting a bridge trial with 1,600 participants in India. For those spreading rumours let it be known that EUA for COVAXIN is differently conditional – in clinical trial mode EUA for COVAXIN is different from COVISHIELD because its use will be in clinical trial mode.All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial pic.twitter.com/1N8LGnhC3w — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 In case of the Bharat Biotech vaccine, the company’s founder Krishna Ella said in a press conference on Monday that the company will be able to submit phase 3 trial data by March 2021. Under the government authorization, members of the public being administered the vaccine will be tracked and monitored as if they are in a trial. However, critics said that ethically, that could be problematic, insofar as a placebo arm for the trial could not realistically be maintained: “Once the vaccine has been authorised, it’s unethical to continue Phase 3 and give placebo to participants. You cannot continue clinical trials,” said Dr Amar Jesani, an independent researcher and bioethicist pointed out. According to the DCGI, Bharat Biotech’s Phase 3 trial has already recruited 22,500 participants so far and was “found to be safe” – although it provided no further details. Other media reports, meanwhile, contradicted that statement, saying that not enough volunteers had even been registered for Phase 3 trials of the vaccine. The controversy quickly took on political tones as some leaders from opposition parties also questioned the local vaccine’s approval ahead of the completion of Phase 3 trials. An Indian government official retorted meanwhile, that the opposition’s comments were “disgraceful” and an attempt to politicise the vaccine approvals. Opaque Approval Process – Indian Watchdog Group Calls for Vaccine Transparency AstraZeneca’s India trial has already been a subject of controversy. In October 2020, a trial participant from Chennai, in southern India, sent a legal notice to Serum Institute seeking Rs 5 crores (or approximately US$ 684,000) as compensation, claiming he had suffered serious neurological impairment following one dose of the vaccine. Serum Institute threatened to counter-sue the trial participant calling the allegations in the notice “malicious and misconceived”, and it was subsequently reported that the adverse event was not vaccine-related. Dr Jesani flagged that while the trial stopped after a serious adverse event was reported in the UK, the same did not happen in India. That and other issues related to a reproted lack of transparency have stirred debates in the media about about the way in which the local arm of the AstraZeneca trial was conducted and monitored. And while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) live-streamed the 8 hour proceedings that led to the emergency authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the process in India has been comparatively opaque. The government has provided no criteria by which the vaccines were reviewed. Only a few lines of text described the meeting held to approve the vaccines. Although DCGI Dr Somani’s statement was published live, he also refused to take any questions from the press. The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), a public health watchdog, demanded that authorities provide more information on the process that had led to the clearances of the two vaccines for restricted emergency use. “We are baffled to understand what scientific logic has motivated the top experts in the SEC to approve this vaccine posthaste,” it said in a statement. AIDAN's immediate response to SEC recommendations to grant Restricted Emergency Use approval to vaccine candidates of @SerumInstIndia& @BharatBiotech@ICMRDELHI @CDSCO_INDIA_INF @BIRAC_2012 @NITIAayog @PMOIndia @ProfBhargava @drharshvardhan @GaviSeth @doctorsoumya @SuchitraElla pic.twitter.com/KuGy0CGdF5 — Malini Aisola (@malini_aisola) January 2, 2021 The statement further demanded the drug controller clarify the legal provisions under which the two vaccines were approved, and asked the regulator to share the “detailed rationale for the decision along with disclosure of the data, evidence and information” reviewed by the expert panel and drug controller. “There is a stronger case for transparency in the pandemic because of the accelerated process of vaccine regulatory approval. Globally a norm has set in with vaccine companies sharing trial data even through publications and pre-prints in the interest of public disclosure. We have unfortunately not made enough progress in India on the transparency front,” said Malini Aisola, co-convenor of AlDAN. Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation. Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
People Who Have Had COVID Can Delay Vaccine Up To 6 Months, Says WHO 05/01/2021 J Hacker Warning: Attempt to read property "post_title" on null in /home/clients/58f2a29976672af522a8f4d82ffa28b6/web/wp-content/plugins/better-image-credits/better-image-credits.php on line 227 An NHS worker in North London receives a COVID-19 vaccine as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson looks on. WHO has joined other bodies and public health figures in saying that there is no scientific evidence for a delay in a vaccine’s second dose – as per the recent United Kingdom policy decision. People who have recently had a confirmed COVID-19 infection can choose to delay vaccination, so as to allow others who are not immune take advantage of initial procurements, WHO has recommended. Following WHO’s approval of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine last week, its strategic advisory group of experts (SAGE) said that if a person has had a PCR documented SARS-CoV-2 infection within the last 6 months, they may choose to hold off on being vaccinated until nearer to the end of that period. “SAGE recommends that COVID vaccination be offered regardless of a person’s history of asymptomatic or symptomatic of SARS-CoV-2 infection,” SAGE’s chair Dr Alejandro Cravioto said at a media briefing on Tuesday, where he announced the body’s recommendations for emergency use of the vaccine. He added: “Available data currently indicates that symptomatic reinfection within 6 months of initial infection is rare.” As a result, people who waive their initial opportunity to be inoculated would encourage the use of the first available vaccines for those who have not yet been exposed to the virus. Also at the briefing, WHO stated that there was no scientific evidence to support a delay of more than 6 weeks when administering a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, joining the manufacturer itself and the White House COVID Task Team advisor Dr Anthony Fauci in criticising the UK’s decision to delay second doses by up to 12 weeks. “It is important to note that there is very little empirical data from the trials that underpin this type of recommendation,” Dr Joachim Hombach, executive secretary of SAGE, said, acknowledging that individual countries may need “to be even more flexible in terms of the administration of the second dose”. The UK decision was taken in light of surging rates of new infections, which are now among the highest in the world. WHO’s SARS-CoV2 Investigative Team Members Turned Away By China In Last Minute Foulup Over VISA Approvals 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & J Hacker BREAKING – Two members of a 10 person WHO-sponsored mission to China to investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus were turned away at China’s doorsteps after official approvals that WHO understood to be finalized were held up at the last minute. One member has turned around and is now returning home, while the second remains stuck in transit in a third country. Eight other members of the team were told to delay their departures altogether, WHO confirmed on Tuesday. “Over the past 24 hours, members of the international scientific team on COVID-19 virus origins began travelling from their home countries to China,” Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated at the WHO press briefing. “This was as per arrangements jointly developed between WHO, the Chinese government, and the countries for which the team was meant to travel through,” he clarified. “Today, we learnt that Chinese officials have not yet finalised the necessary permissions for the teams arrival in China.” Indicating that WHO had instructed the other eight team members who were not yet airborne to cancel their journeys for the time being: “We did not want to put people in the air, unnecessarily if there wasn’t a guarantee of their arrival in China.” WHO’s executive director of health emergencies, Dr Mike Ryan said that it had become “clear that the necessary approvals had not been gotten, specifically in regards to visa clearances”. “We were all operating on the understanding that the team will begin deployment today,” and explained that based upon that understanding, two members of the team had already begun travelling yesterday. Ryan added: “The two colleagues who have been travelling: one has been turned around and has a reasonably short journey home. The other will stay in transit in a third country, awaiting further details.” Night view of Wuhan, Hubei, China. Neither he nor Dr Tedros clarified which two team members had actually been in transit when their entry to China was denied. The WHO officials expressed hopes that the holdups were the result of a “logistic and bureaucratic issue” that could be resolved quickly. Dispatch of the team has been long-awaited by many WHO member states, after months of delays in the launch of the mission which was mandated by a World Health Assembly resolution in May. WHO finally named the investigative team in late November. The Organization also published outlines of a Phase 1 and Phase 2 study for the virus origins investigation. In December, WHO officials said that, the team would travel to Wuhan in January. Speaking at Tuesday’s briefing, however, Dr Tedros said: “I’m very disappointed with this news, given that two members have already begun their journeys and others were not able to travel at the last minute. “I have been in contact with senior Chinese officials, and I have again made it clear that the mission is a priority for WHO, and the international team have been assured that China is speeding up the internal procedure for the earliest possible deployment.” Mission Aims To Resolve Mystery of Virus Origins The first clusters of human infection with the SARS-CoV2 virus surfaced in Wuhan China in December 2019, around a seafood market that also sold wild animals for slaughter, and it was presumed that these first infections had passed from animals to people working or shopping at the market. But in the following months, the origins of the first human infections became far less clear. It emerged that some of the people first diagnosed with the virus in Wuhan had not had any contact with the market. The virus has been traced to a family of coronaviruses that circulates naturally in bats in a province of southwestern China, hundreds of miles from Wuhan. But how and where the virus may have lept to humans remains more of a mystery. Some critics have suggested that it could have escaped in a biosafety failure from a Wuhan virology laboratory where extensive coronavirus research was in fact taking place, however WHO does not list this as one of its leading concerns. Meanwhile, China’s state-controlled news channel began to construct an alternative narrative, claiming that the virus may not have originated in China at all. Even if the virus did originate outside of the country, WHO has repeatedly insisted that any epidemiological investigation must begin with the first cluster: those found in Wuhan. Those assigned to the delicate task of discerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 include prominent public health figures and animal health experts from across WHO’s Member States. Marion Koopmans – the virology professor leading research into the Dutch outbreak on mink farms – and former UK deputy chief medical officer John Watson are both set to travel to Wuhan. Prominent British zoologist Peter Daszak, who has a history researching bat coronaviruses in southeastern China and who is also president of the US Ecohealth Alliance, will also be dispatched. Daszak will also head The Lancet’s independent COVID-19 Commission Task Force, which some independent experts say might have an even better chance of fully investigating the origins of the coronavirus than the WHO team. If this task force never sets foot in China, it will still have the advantage of not being beholden to Beijing: a powerful actor in WHO’s member state governing body. Other experts are traveling from Australia, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, Russia, Japan, Qatar, Viet Nam and the USA. US-China Tensions Lend Mission Strong Geopolitical Dimensions Along with China’s resistance and WHO’s response, the US administration of outgoing President Donald Trump also created a platform for itself in the dispute, accusing WHO of bias and blaming China for the spread of SARS-CoV-2. At a November session of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the deputy director of the US Department of Health and Human Services charged that the just-published terms of reference for the investigative team were “not negotiated in a transparent way with all WHO member states”. Garrett Grigsby then went on to say that the terms failed to fulfill the original WHA mandate, adding that “understanding the origins of COVID-19 through a transparent and inclusive investigation is what must be done” in order to meet that mandate. WHO officials have said that they are regularly consulting with the missions of other governments in Geneva, and that the study process and findings will be transmitted transparently. And while the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden may lower the accusatory tone against Beijing, there is building pressure from other European and Western Pacific countries applied to WHO to push harder on the Chinese government. Whether out of deference to Beijing or a realistic assessment that such action would not achieve anything, Dr Tedros and his team have so far resisted naming and shaming Beijing publicly. There will be no denying the embarrassment to Beijing of the mid-air turnaround of investigative team members, however. Image Credits: pxfuel.com, Arend Kuester/Flickr. Israel Approves Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine – First Country Outside North America 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher The mobile station, which opened Friday in a large city park, allows Israeli citizens and residents over the age of 60 to walk in and be vaccinated on the spot. BREAKING – Israel’s Ministry of Health on Tuesday approved the administration of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, making it the first country outside of North America to greenlight the US-based startup’s candidate. The announcement by Moderna said that deliveries of the vaccine to Israel would begin already in January – sharply advancing a schedule that was originally to have begun in March. “First deliveries are expected to begin shortly,” the press release stated, noting that “Israel is the third country for which Moderna has received authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine” following the US and Canada on 18 and 23 December 2020 respectively. The European Union (EU), Singapore, UK and Switzerland are also reviewing the candidate. Moderna’s vaccine is based upon a novel mRNA technology similar to that being used by Pfizer/BioNTech, already being deployed in a number of countries worldwide. The vaccine was approved against the specter of mounting COVID-19 infections in Israel, despite the massive vaccine campaign already underway: more than 1 million people have an initial Pfizer vaccine dose. Israel’s average rates of new infections, are among the highest in the world currently, with Switzerland holding one of the highest rates in western Europe. While the campaign has placed Israel at the top of the list of vaccine doses administered per-capita, it is racing against time to beat back infection rates by vaccinating more people. Israel’s average rates of new infections – which are among the highest in the world currently – are running at about 66 people per 100,000, as compared to 64 per 100,000 in the United States and 82 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom. Israel has secured around 6 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine. Together with another large order secured from Pfizer, the two vaccines should be sufficient to vaccinate most of the country’s 9 million residents even before a locally-developed vaccine – currently in Phase 2 trials – becomes available, most likely in the summer. Switzerland Delay of Moderna Vaccine Approval – Doses in Visp Can Ship Immediately To Israel Ironically, the Moderna vaccine will be imported to Israel from the Swiss-based firm Lonza, where hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses were already in production in December at the company’s manufacturing facility in Visp. In light of the Swiss and European delays in approving the Moderna vaccine, ready-to-use vaccines can be shifted to Israel for the time being, which is eager to get its order right away. Swiss approval of the Moderna vaccine by the national regulatory authority, Swissmedic, has lagged behind that of the Pfizer counterpart, which was approved by Swissmedic in December. That is despite the fact that the expert panel of the US Food and Drug Administration gave the Moderna vaccine an even higher vote of confidence than it did the Pfizer candidate, when it reviewed both vaccines in meetings only a week apart last month. While the US and China have already rolled out more than 4.5 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines, and Israel and the UK have reached or exceeded the one million mark, the rest of Europe is moving much more slowly. Switzerland’s slow start to its vaccination campaign has been the subject of sharp criticism. And among European countries, the number of vaccines administered by Switzerland have so far been negligible. Only half of the country’s Cantons have even begun their campaigns – which major efforts only set to kick off in some regions, such as the heavily populated and heavily infected Canton of Vaud, bordering Geneva, next week. The slow Swiss start to its own national rollout has become a growing focus of criticism, particularly in light of Switzerland’s high infection rates. At about 40 new cases per 100,000, Switzerland has a new infection rate that is one of the highest in western Europe outside of the United Kingdom. “In another ten days, all of the Israeli population over the age of 60 will have been vaccinated – our vaccination programme is a fiasco that is costing lives every day and will continue to destroy still for months our economy,” Swiss lawmaker Philippe Natermod, vice president of the Swiss Freel Democratic Party, (PLR) and a member of the Swiss Federal Council, lamented in a recent Tweet. Dans une dizaine de jours, toute la population israélienne de plus de soixante ans sera vaccinée. Notre programme de vaccination est un fiasco qui coûte chaque jour des vies et détruira encore pendant des mois notre économie. #yaka https://t.co/ScMhAOXXRQ — Philippe Nantermod (@nantermod) January 1, 2021 Last week, in an exclusive interview with Health Policy Watch, a senior scientist at the University of Lausanne also complained about the unnecessary loss of lives as well as lifelong cases of COVID-related disability that would occur as a result of the delayed vaccine rollout. “The Department of Health doesn’t seem to understand that in just three weeks of delay, with 4,000 new infections per day, 100 will die everyday. That means in three weeks, more than 2,000 people will die unduly,” said Dr Pierre Goloubinoff, a biologist who has been doing research on COVID-19 treatments, as a result of the pandemic. “If we could do a vaccine blitz, and vaccinate all of the high-risk population in a month, in terms of the economy it would be completely liberating.” Switzerland has also been criticised for carrying out far too few tests to adequately chart the spread of coronavirus. Switzerland has ordered approximately 13 million COVID-19 doses: 4.5 million doses from Moderna, 5.3 million from AstraZeneca, and 3 million of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. But in the absence of a Swissmedic approval of the Moderna vaccine, only the Pfizer vaccine doses are approved for use. And only 107,000 doses of that vaccine have been delivered so far. Vaud’s Health Minister Rebecca Ruiz told Swiss Radio RTS that regional authorities have also been left to fend for themselves in terms of setting up an adequate vaccination infrastructure – after requesting help from the army to set up mobile vaccination units. “But our request was refused, so we are left to our own devices”, she pointed out. In a series of messages conveyed by the Swiss Mission in Geneva to UN international organizations, Swiss health authorities said that the initial phases of the vaccine campaign would be focused on people over the age of 75 living in care homes, as well as health workers, in light of the limited vaccine supplies. The statements also pointedly stated that the vaccine campaign is of unprecedented logistical complexity. Image Credits: Our World in Data, Our World in Data. UK Delay of Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose – A Risky Strategy That Could Give Rise To More Virus Mutations, Some Experts Warn 04/01/2021 Madeleine Hoecklin The administration of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in mid-December. The United Kingdom’s decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being rolled out en masse in the nation is a risky strategy – not only for those getting the vaccine, but also in terms of the longer-term public health impacts such delays could have in terms of future SARS-CoV2 mutations, some experts are warning. Administering a weakened vaccine formulation, as a result of long delays between the required two vaccine doses could open the door for the more rapid evolution of SARS-CoV virus, including mutations resistant to the vaccines only just now being deployed en masse, several leading virologists have said. They spoke in the wake of Britain’s decision on 30 December to postpone the administration of the second dose of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine by as much as 4 to 12 weeks, so that more first doses could be administered right away. Delaying the second dose has the potential to generate resistant spike variants that evade the antibody responses induced by vaccines, tweeted Paul Bieniasz, a British-American virologist at Rockefeller University. “Generating a pool of hosts with just the right amount of neutralizing antibody to apply selection pressure, but also maintain sufficient levels of partially antibody-resistant virus to allow onward transmission is key here…If we let immunity wane for a little while, say 4 to 12 weeks, we just might hit the sweet spot” to generate vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV2 variants, Bieniasz added. Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist. pic.twitter.com/IVU1COZPof — Paul Bieniasz (@PaulBieniasz) January 2, 2021 While the UK’s novel attempt to provide some form of broad population immunity as fast as possible is laudable, the experts says, potential negative impacts on the mutation of the virus, and thus on vaccine effectiveness, could offset the benefits. “The most credible arguments…are: a) the possibility that ‘partial immunity’ will spawn harmful mutations; b) concern that delay means more people won’t return for 2nd dose; c) whether change in vaccine schedule will lead to more vaccine hesitancy,” said Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at University of California at San Francisco, in another series of Tweets. UK Was First In Pfizer Rollout – But Stretched Resources Leave It Hunting For More Doses The United Kingdom was the first country in the West to issue an emergency authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, followed by the launch of the mass vaccination campaign on 8 December, beginning with health workers and older people. So far, the vaccine has been administered to about 1 million people nation-wide through the National Health Service, with second shots due three weeks later. The total number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered globally, as of January 4. The decision to prioritize the administration of the first dose to as many at-risk individuals as possible over providing the two doses according to the recommended schedule was made amid the spread of a variant strain of SARS-CoV2 with a higher rate of transmission and higher viral load. These measures were justified as “allow[ing] more people to benefit from the protection provided from the first dose during the roll out phase,” states the updated UK guidelines “Greenbook.” An accompanying statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), makes the case, saying that in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, vaccine efficiency would still be at least 70% and possibly as high as 90%, from about two weeks after the first dose, based on models of the clinical trials undertaken so far. But with the absence of clear data on the length that protection from the first dose lasts, Britain’s decision could have dangerous ramifications, leaving millions of people with incomplete or waning immunity, other independent experts pointed out. “There are good reasons for giving the second dose. It is likely that the second dose is needed to generate long lived and strong immunity,” tweeted Florian Krammer, professor at the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “But it will likely also drive affinity maturation of antibodies. This will make the antibodies stronger, and potentially will allow them to better cope with new variants.” Moncef Slaoui, head of the US Government’s Operation Warp Speed rollout of COVID vaccines in the US, also criticized Britain’s decision in an interview with CBS “Face the Nation,” saying: “We always said that these vaccines would be developed on the basis of science and all decisions would be made transparently on the basis of data. Changing the decisions made…which was to give two doses of vaccine – the second dose gives you ten times higher immune response than the first – without any data, I think would not be responsible.” Meanwhile, Pfizer and BioNTech warned in a joint statement released on Monday that “the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design.” Mixing and Matching Of Vaccines also Emerges as an Issue Last week British regulators also became the first to approve a vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, which is also a two dose regimen – based on a more conventional adenovirus vector technology, and also more temperature resilient than the sensitive Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which requires ultra cold storage. British regulators have also suggested that they might allow for the mixing of different vaccine brands, as well, in some situations. According to the UK’s updated vaccination guidelines, in cases “where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule.” But while the guidelines offer vaccine mixing and matching as an option, this should only take place on very rare occasions and “every effort should be made to give [the patient] the same vaccine,” stressed Mary Ramsay, head of immunizations at Public Health England. The US media, meanwhile, has overplayed the impacts of the “mix and match” vaccine option as a part of UK vaccine strategy, Fiona Godlee, editor of The BMJ was reported to have said in a letter to the New York Times. Godlee stressed that the strategy was not a recommendation, but rather a strategy of last resort, the BBC reported. Godlee demanded that the New York Times print a correction to its previous article, which had stated that: “Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match vaccinations, Worrying Experts”. Image Credits: Flickr – Province of British Columbia, Our World in Data. India Approves 2 Vaccines For ‘Restricted Emergency Use’ Ahead of Phase 3 Trial Data 04/01/2021 Menaka Rao Dr VG Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), has said that two COVID vaccines have been approved for emergency use. He refused to take questions from the press following the announcement, however. Delhi – India’s chief drug regulator approved two COVID-19 vaccines for “restricted emergency use” in the country on Sunday, opening the doors for a mass vaccination campaign against COVID to begin in one of the world’s largest countries, and a lower middle-income country at that. However, some watchdog groups said that the review process leading up to the government’s approval had lacked transparency – and in the case case of one locally-developed vaccine, Phase 3 trials had not been completed. The approved vaccines include the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, to be manufactured at large scale in India by the Serum Institute, and an indigenous vaccine developed by India’s Council for Medical Research, and to be produced by the Hyderabad company Bharat Biotech. While the AstraZeneca vaccine was also approved last week in the United Kingdom, Indian government approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine came before Phase 3 trials had even been completed, prompting criticism over a lack of efficacy data. The fact that Bharat Biotech has not completed its Phase 3 trials, means that India will now join the ranks of China and Russia as the only countries to have approved vaccines without Phase 3 clinical trial data. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Dr VG Somani, said that the drug regulatory body approved the vaccines after “adequate examination”. Approval of the two vaccines was recommended by an expert committee of doctors who examined data from the clinical trials. The Indian government plans to first immunise 30 million healthcare workers. In this first phase, the government also plans to immunise about 270 million people above the age of 50, and those younger with comorbidities. The vaccine will be given free of cost as promised by India’s Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan. Kudos to Hon’ble PM Sh @narendramodi ji for re-establishing India as the vaccine capital of the world !Anti-national comments & cynicism of the Opposition notwithstanding, @WHO has welcomed the Indian approval of both #COVISHIELD & #COVAXIN ! Roll up your sleeves everyone ! pic.twitter.com/UqLPgWrwDi — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 While the Serum Institute vaccine was granted permission for restricted use in emergency situations “subject to certain regulatory conditions”, the Bharat Biotech vaccine was approved “as abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode.” The Bharat Biotech vaccine was developed the Indian Council for Medical Research, a government research body. No Phase 3 Trial Data While the AstraZeneca approval relied upon Phase 3 data gathered abroad, India’s Serum Institute has not yet submitted complete data from the AstraZeneca trials being conducted in India, critics also said. Scientists and other experts questioned the meaning of the approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine while still in “clinical trial mode”. They warned that a hasty approval process could stoke vaccine hesitancy or even fuel anti-vaccine sentiments. India now joins ranks with Russia and China for approvals to #Covid19 vaccines in the absence of efficacy data sets 😳 🙄 — Anant Bhan (@AnantBhan) January 3, 2021 Phase 3 trials are usually double-blinded, with one arm of the trial participants receiving the vaccine, and the other arm getting a placebo. In case of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, the two arms are compared to see which group had participants that did not suffer from COVID-19. The extent of protection provided in the vaccine group determines its efficacy. In terms of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the DCGI relied on the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity (the ability to induce immune responses) data generated on 23,745 adult participants from the UK and Brazil which showed vaccine efficacy of 70.42%, the govenrment statement said. The efficacy results were published in The Lancet earlier in December. The Serum Institute in India is still conducting a bridge trial with 1,600 participants in India. For those spreading rumours let it be known that EUA for COVAXIN is differently conditional – in clinical trial mode EUA for COVAXIN is different from COVISHIELD because its use will be in clinical trial mode.All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial pic.twitter.com/1N8LGnhC3w — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 In case of the Bharat Biotech vaccine, the company’s founder Krishna Ella said in a press conference on Monday that the company will be able to submit phase 3 trial data by March 2021. Under the government authorization, members of the public being administered the vaccine will be tracked and monitored as if they are in a trial. However, critics said that ethically, that could be problematic, insofar as a placebo arm for the trial could not realistically be maintained: “Once the vaccine has been authorised, it’s unethical to continue Phase 3 and give placebo to participants. You cannot continue clinical trials,” said Dr Amar Jesani, an independent researcher and bioethicist pointed out. According to the DCGI, Bharat Biotech’s Phase 3 trial has already recruited 22,500 participants so far and was “found to be safe” – although it provided no further details. Other media reports, meanwhile, contradicted that statement, saying that not enough volunteers had even been registered for Phase 3 trials of the vaccine. The controversy quickly took on political tones as some leaders from opposition parties also questioned the local vaccine’s approval ahead of the completion of Phase 3 trials. An Indian government official retorted meanwhile, that the opposition’s comments were “disgraceful” and an attempt to politicise the vaccine approvals. Opaque Approval Process – Indian Watchdog Group Calls for Vaccine Transparency AstraZeneca’s India trial has already been a subject of controversy. In October 2020, a trial participant from Chennai, in southern India, sent a legal notice to Serum Institute seeking Rs 5 crores (or approximately US$ 684,000) as compensation, claiming he had suffered serious neurological impairment following one dose of the vaccine. Serum Institute threatened to counter-sue the trial participant calling the allegations in the notice “malicious and misconceived”, and it was subsequently reported that the adverse event was not vaccine-related. Dr Jesani flagged that while the trial stopped after a serious adverse event was reported in the UK, the same did not happen in India. That and other issues related to a reproted lack of transparency have stirred debates in the media about about the way in which the local arm of the AstraZeneca trial was conducted and monitored. And while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) live-streamed the 8 hour proceedings that led to the emergency authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the process in India has been comparatively opaque. The government has provided no criteria by which the vaccines were reviewed. Only a few lines of text described the meeting held to approve the vaccines. Although DCGI Dr Somani’s statement was published live, he also refused to take any questions from the press. The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), a public health watchdog, demanded that authorities provide more information on the process that had led to the clearances of the two vaccines for restricted emergency use. “We are baffled to understand what scientific logic has motivated the top experts in the SEC to approve this vaccine posthaste,” it said in a statement. AIDAN's immediate response to SEC recommendations to grant Restricted Emergency Use approval to vaccine candidates of @SerumInstIndia& @BharatBiotech@ICMRDELHI @CDSCO_INDIA_INF @BIRAC_2012 @NITIAayog @PMOIndia @ProfBhargava @drharshvardhan @GaviSeth @doctorsoumya @SuchitraElla pic.twitter.com/KuGy0CGdF5 — Malini Aisola (@malini_aisola) January 2, 2021 The statement further demanded the drug controller clarify the legal provisions under which the two vaccines were approved, and asked the regulator to share the “detailed rationale for the decision along with disclosure of the data, evidence and information” reviewed by the expert panel and drug controller. “There is a stronger case for transparency in the pandemic because of the accelerated process of vaccine regulatory approval. Globally a norm has set in with vaccine companies sharing trial data even through publications and pre-prints in the interest of public disclosure. We have unfortunately not made enough progress in India on the transparency front,” said Malini Aisola, co-convenor of AlDAN. Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation. Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
WHO’s SARS-CoV2 Investigative Team Members Turned Away By China In Last Minute Foulup Over VISA Approvals 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher & J Hacker BREAKING – Two members of a 10 person WHO-sponsored mission to China to investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus were turned away at China’s doorsteps after official approvals that WHO understood to be finalized were held up at the last minute. One member has turned around and is now returning home, while the second remains stuck in transit in a third country. Eight other members of the team were told to delay their departures altogether, WHO confirmed on Tuesday. “Over the past 24 hours, members of the international scientific team on COVID-19 virus origins began travelling from their home countries to China,” Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated at the WHO press briefing. “This was as per arrangements jointly developed between WHO, the Chinese government, and the countries for which the team was meant to travel through,” he clarified. “Today, we learnt that Chinese officials have not yet finalised the necessary permissions for the teams arrival in China.” Indicating that WHO had instructed the other eight team members who were not yet airborne to cancel their journeys for the time being: “We did not want to put people in the air, unnecessarily if there wasn’t a guarantee of their arrival in China.” WHO’s executive director of health emergencies, Dr Mike Ryan said that it had become “clear that the necessary approvals had not been gotten, specifically in regards to visa clearances”. “We were all operating on the understanding that the team will begin deployment today,” and explained that based upon that understanding, two members of the team had already begun travelling yesterday. Ryan added: “The two colleagues who have been travelling: one has been turned around and has a reasonably short journey home. The other will stay in transit in a third country, awaiting further details.” Night view of Wuhan, Hubei, China. Neither he nor Dr Tedros clarified which two team members had actually been in transit when their entry to China was denied. The WHO officials expressed hopes that the holdups were the result of a “logistic and bureaucratic issue” that could be resolved quickly. Dispatch of the team has been long-awaited by many WHO member states, after months of delays in the launch of the mission which was mandated by a World Health Assembly resolution in May. WHO finally named the investigative team in late November. The Organization also published outlines of a Phase 1 and Phase 2 study for the virus origins investigation. In December, WHO officials said that, the team would travel to Wuhan in January. Speaking at Tuesday’s briefing, however, Dr Tedros said: “I’m very disappointed with this news, given that two members have already begun their journeys and others were not able to travel at the last minute. “I have been in contact with senior Chinese officials, and I have again made it clear that the mission is a priority for WHO, and the international team have been assured that China is speeding up the internal procedure for the earliest possible deployment.” Mission Aims To Resolve Mystery of Virus Origins The first clusters of human infection with the SARS-CoV2 virus surfaced in Wuhan China in December 2019, around a seafood market that also sold wild animals for slaughter, and it was presumed that these first infections had passed from animals to people working or shopping at the market. But in the following months, the origins of the first human infections became far less clear. It emerged that some of the people first diagnosed with the virus in Wuhan had not had any contact with the market. The virus has been traced to a family of coronaviruses that circulates naturally in bats in a province of southwestern China, hundreds of miles from Wuhan. But how and where the virus may have lept to humans remains more of a mystery. Some critics have suggested that it could have escaped in a biosafety failure from a Wuhan virology laboratory where extensive coronavirus research was in fact taking place, however WHO does not list this as one of its leading concerns. Meanwhile, China’s state-controlled news channel began to construct an alternative narrative, claiming that the virus may not have originated in China at all. Even if the virus did originate outside of the country, WHO has repeatedly insisted that any epidemiological investigation must begin with the first cluster: those found in Wuhan. Those assigned to the delicate task of discerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 include prominent public health figures and animal health experts from across WHO’s Member States. Marion Koopmans – the virology professor leading research into the Dutch outbreak on mink farms – and former UK deputy chief medical officer John Watson are both set to travel to Wuhan. Prominent British zoologist Peter Daszak, who has a history researching bat coronaviruses in southeastern China and who is also president of the US Ecohealth Alliance, will also be dispatched. Daszak will also head The Lancet’s independent COVID-19 Commission Task Force, which some independent experts say might have an even better chance of fully investigating the origins of the coronavirus than the WHO team. If this task force never sets foot in China, it will still have the advantage of not being beholden to Beijing: a powerful actor in WHO’s member state governing body. Other experts are traveling from Australia, Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, Russia, Japan, Qatar, Viet Nam and the USA. US-China Tensions Lend Mission Strong Geopolitical Dimensions Along with China’s resistance and WHO’s response, the US administration of outgoing President Donald Trump also created a platform for itself in the dispute, accusing WHO of bias and blaming China for the spread of SARS-CoV-2. At a November session of the World Health Assembly (WHA), the deputy director of the US Department of Health and Human Services charged that the just-published terms of reference for the investigative team were “not negotiated in a transparent way with all WHO member states”. Garrett Grigsby then went on to say that the terms failed to fulfill the original WHA mandate, adding that “understanding the origins of COVID-19 through a transparent and inclusive investigation is what must be done” in order to meet that mandate. WHO officials have said that they are regularly consulting with the missions of other governments in Geneva, and that the study process and findings will be transmitted transparently. And while the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden may lower the accusatory tone against Beijing, there is building pressure from other European and Western Pacific countries applied to WHO to push harder on the Chinese government. Whether out of deference to Beijing or a realistic assessment that such action would not achieve anything, Dr Tedros and his team have so far resisted naming and shaming Beijing publicly. There will be no denying the embarrassment to Beijing of the mid-air turnaround of investigative team members, however. Image Credits: pxfuel.com, Arend Kuester/Flickr. Israel Approves Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine – First Country Outside North America 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher The mobile station, which opened Friday in a large city park, allows Israeli citizens and residents over the age of 60 to walk in and be vaccinated on the spot. BREAKING – Israel’s Ministry of Health on Tuesday approved the administration of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, making it the first country outside of North America to greenlight the US-based startup’s candidate. The announcement by Moderna said that deliveries of the vaccine to Israel would begin already in January – sharply advancing a schedule that was originally to have begun in March. “First deliveries are expected to begin shortly,” the press release stated, noting that “Israel is the third country for which Moderna has received authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine” following the US and Canada on 18 and 23 December 2020 respectively. The European Union (EU), Singapore, UK and Switzerland are also reviewing the candidate. Moderna’s vaccine is based upon a novel mRNA technology similar to that being used by Pfizer/BioNTech, already being deployed in a number of countries worldwide. The vaccine was approved against the specter of mounting COVID-19 infections in Israel, despite the massive vaccine campaign already underway: more than 1 million people have an initial Pfizer vaccine dose. Israel’s average rates of new infections, are among the highest in the world currently, with Switzerland holding one of the highest rates in western Europe. While the campaign has placed Israel at the top of the list of vaccine doses administered per-capita, it is racing against time to beat back infection rates by vaccinating more people. Israel’s average rates of new infections – which are among the highest in the world currently – are running at about 66 people per 100,000, as compared to 64 per 100,000 in the United States and 82 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom. Israel has secured around 6 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine. Together with another large order secured from Pfizer, the two vaccines should be sufficient to vaccinate most of the country’s 9 million residents even before a locally-developed vaccine – currently in Phase 2 trials – becomes available, most likely in the summer. Switzerland Delay of Moderna Vaccine Approval – Doses in Visp Can Ship Immediately To Israel Ironically, the Moderna vaccine will be imported to Israel from the Swiss-based firm Lonza, where hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses were already in production in December at the company’s manufacturing facility in Visp. In light of the Swiss and European delays in approving the Moderna vaccine, ready-to-use vaccines can be shifted to Israel for the time being, which is eager to get its order right away. Swiss approval of the Moderna vaccine by the national regulatory authority, Swissmedic, has lagged behind that of the Pfizer counterpart, which was approved by Swissmedic in December. That is despite the fact that the expert panel of the US Food and Drug Administration gave the Moderna vaccine an even higher vote of confidence than it did the Pfizer candidate, when it reviewed both vaccines in meetings only a week apart last month. While the US and China have already rolled out more than 4.5 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines, and Israel and the UK have reached or exceeded the one million mark, the rest of Europe is moving much more slowly. Switzerland’s slow start to its vaccination campaign has been the subject of sharp criticism. And among European countries, the number of vaccines administered by Switzerland have so far been negligible. Only half of the country’s Cantons have even begun their campaigns – which major efforts only set to kick off in some regions, such as the heavily populated and heavily infected Canton of Vaud, bordering Geneva, next week. The slow Swiss start to its own national rollout has become a growing focus of criticism, particularly in light of Switzerland’s high infection rates. At about 40 new cases per 100,000, Switzerland has a new infection rate that is one of the highest in western Europe outside of the United Kingdom. “In another ten days, all of the Israeli population over the age of 60 will have been vaccinated – our vaccination programme is a fiasco that is costing lives every day and will continue to destroy still for months our economy,” Swiss lawmaker Philippe Natermod, vice president of the Swiss Freel Democratic Party, (PLR) and a member of the Swiss Federal Council, lamented in a recent Tweet. Dans une dizaine de jours, toute la population israélienne de plus de soixante ans sera vaccinée. Notre programme de vaccination est un fiasco qui coûte chaque jour des vies et détruira encore pendant des mois notre économie. #yaka https://t.co/ScMhAOXXRQ — Philippe Nantermod (@nantermod) January 1, 2021 Last week, in an exclusive interview with Health Policy Watch, a senior scientist at the University of Lausanne also complained about the unnecessary loss of lives as well as lifelong cases of COVID-related disability that would occur as a result of the delayed vaccine rollout. “The Department of Health doesn’t seem to understand that in just three weeks of delay, with 4,000 new infections per day, 100 will die everyday. That means in three weeks, more than 2,000 people will die unduly,” said Dr Pierre Goloubinoff, a biologist who has been doing research on COVID-19 treatments, as a result of the pandemic. “If we could do a vaccine blitz, and vaccinate all of the high-risk population in a month, in terms of the economy it would be completely liberating.” Switzerland has also been criticised for carrying out far too few tests to adequately chart the spread of coronavirus. Switzerland has ordered approximately 13 million COVID-19 doses: 4.5 million doses from Moderna, 5.3 million from AstraZeneca, and 3 million of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. But in the absence of a Swissmedic approval of the Moderna vaccine, only the Pfizer vaccine doses are approved for use. And only 107,000 doses of that vaccine have been delivered so far. Vaud’s Health Minister Rebecca Ruiz told Swiss Radio RTS that regional authorities have also been left to fend for themselves in terms of setting up an adequate vaccination infrastructure – after requesting help from the army to set up mobile vaccination units. “But our request was refused, so we are left to our own devices”, she pointed out. In a series of messages conveyed by the Swiss Mission in Geneva to UN international organizations, Swiss health authorities said that the initial phases of the vaccine campaign would be focused on people over the age of 75 living in care homes, as well as health workers, in light of the limited vaccine supplies. The statements also pointedly stated that the vaccine campaign is of unprecedented logistical complexity. Image Credits: Our World in Data, Our World in Data. UK Delay of Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose – A Risky Strategy That Could Give Rise To More Virus Mutations, Some Experts Warn 04/01/2021 Madeleine Hoecklin The administration of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in mid-December. The United Kingdom’s decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being rolled out en masse in the nation is a risky strategy – not only for those getting the vaccine, but also in terms of the longer-term public health impacts such delays could have in terms of future SARS-CoV2 mutations, some experts are warning. Administering a weakened vaccine formulation, as a result of long delays between the required two vaccine doses could open the door for the more rapid evolution of SARS-CoV virus, including mutations resistant to the vaccines only just now being deployed en masse, several leading virologists have said. They spoke in the wake of Britain’s decision on 30 December to postpone the administration of the second dose of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine by as much as 4 to 12 weeks, so that more first doses could be administered right away. Delaying the second dose has the potential to generate resistant spike variants that evade the antibody responses induced by vaccines, tweeted Paul Bieniasz, a British-American virologist at Rockefeller University. “Generating a pool of hosts with just the right amount of neutralizing antibody to apply selection pressure, but also maintain sufficient levels of partially antibody-resistant virus to allow onward transmission is key here…If we let immunity wane for a little while, say 4 to 12 weeks, we just might hit the sweet spot” to generate vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV2 variants, Bieniasz added. Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist. pic.twitter.com/IVU1COZPof — Paul Bieniasz (@PaulBieniasz) January 2, 2021 While the UK’s novel attempt to provide some form of broad population immunity as fast as possible is laudable, the experts says, potential negative impacts on the mutation of the virus, and thus on vaccine effectiveness, could offset the benefits. “The most credible arguments…are: a) the possibility that ‘partial immunity’ will spawn harmful mutations; b) concern that delay means more people won’t return for 2nd dose; c) whether change in vaccine schedule will lead to more vaccine hesitancy,” said Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at University of California at San Francisco, in another series of Tweets. UK Was First In Pfizer Rollout – But Stretched Resources Leave It Hunting For More Doses The United Kingdom was the first country in the West to issue an emergency authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, followed by the launch of the mass vaccination campaign on 8 December, beginning with health workers and older people. So far, the vaccine has been administered to about 1 million people nation-wide through the National Health Service, with second shots due three weeks later. The total number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered globally, as of January 4. The decision to prioritize the administration of the first dose to as many at-risk individuals as possible over providing the two doses according to the recommended schedule was made amid the spread of a variant strain of SARS-CoV2 with a higher rate of transmission and higher viral load. These measures were justified as “allow[ing] more people to benefit from the protection provided from the first dose during the roll out phase,” states the updated UK guidelines “Greenbook.” An accompanying statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), makes the case, saying that in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, vaccine efficiency would still be at least 70% and possibly as high as 90%, from about two weeks after the first dose, based on models of the clinical trials undertaken so far. But with the absence of clear data on the length that protection from the first dose lasts, Britain’s decision could have dangerous ramifications, leaving millions of people with incomplete or waning immunity, other independent experts pointed out. “There are good reasons for giving the second dose. It is likely that the second dose is needed to generate long lived and strong immunity,” tweeted Florian Krammer, professor at the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “But it will likely also drive affinity maturation of antibodies. This will make the antibodies stronger, and potentially will allow them to better cope with new variants.” Moncef Slaoui, head of the US Government’s Operation Warp Speed rollout of COVID vaccines in the US, also criticized Britain’s decision in an interview with CBS “Face the Nation,” saying: “We always said that these vaccines would be developed on the basis of science and all decisions would be made transparently on the basis of data. Changing the decisions made…which was to give two doses of vaccine – the second dose gives you ten times higher immune response than the first – without any data, I think would not be responsible.” Meanwhile, Pfizer and BioNTech warned in a joint statement released on Monday that “the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design.” Mixing and Matching Of Vaccines also Emerges as an Issue Last week British regulators also became the first to approve a vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, which is also a two dose regimen – based on a more conventional adenovirus vector technology, and also more temperature resilient than the sensitive Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which requires ultra cold storage. British regulators have also suggested that they might allow for the mixing of different vaccine brands, as well, in some situations. According to the UK’s updated vaccination guidelines, in cases “where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule.” But while the guidelines offer vaccine mixing and matching as an option, this should only take place on very rare occasions and “every effort should be made to give [the patient] the same vaccine,” stressed Mary Ramsay, head of immunizations at Public Health England. The US media, meanwhile, has overplayed the impacts of the “mix and match” vaccine option as a part of UK vaccine strategy, Fiona Godlee, editor of The BMJ was reported to have said in a letter to the New York Times. Godlee stressed that the strategy was not a recommendation, but rather a strategy of last resort, the BBC reported. Godlee demanded that the New York Times print a correction to its previous article, which had stated that: “Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match vaccinations, Worrying Experts”. Image Credits: Flickr – Province of British Columbia, Our World in Data. India Approves 2 Vaccines For ‘Restricted Emergency Use’ Ahead of Phase 3 Trial Data 04/01/2021 Menaka Rao Dr VG Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), has said that two COVID vaccines have been approved for emergency use. He refused to take questions from the press following the announcement, however. Delhi – India’s chief drug regulator approved two COVID-19 vaccines for “restricted emergency use” in the country on Sunday, opening the doors for a mass vaccination campaign against COVID to begin in one of the world’s largest countries, and a lower middle-income country at that. However, some watchdog groups said that the review process leading up to the government’s approval had lacked transparency – and in the case case of one locally-developed vaccine, Phase 3 trials had not been completed. The approved vaccines include the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, to be manufactured at large scale in India by the Serum Institute, and an indigenous vaccine developed by India’s Council for Medical Research, and to be produced by the Hyderabad company Bharat Biotech. While the AstraZeneca vaccine was also approved last week in the United Kingdom, Indian government approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine came before Phase 3 trials had even been completed, prompting criticism over a lack of efficacy data. The fact that Bharat Biotech has not completed its Phase 3 trials, means that India will now join the ranks of China and Russia as the only countries to have approved vaccines without Phase 3 clinical trial data. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Dr VG Somani, said that the drug regulatory body approved the vaccines after “adequate examination”. Approval of the two vaccines was recommended by an expert committee of doctors who examined data from the clinical trials. The Indian government plans to first immunise 30 million healthcare workers. In this first phase, the government also plans to immunise about 270 million people above the age of 50, and those younger with comorbidities. The vaccine will be given free of cost as promised by India’s Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan. Kudos to Hon’ble PM Sh @narendramodi ji for re-establishing India as the vaccine capital of the world !Anti-national comments & cynicism of the Opposition notwithstanding, @WHO has welcomed the Indian approval of both #COVISHIELD & #COVAXIN ! Roll up your sleeves everyone ! pic.twitter.com/UqLPgWrwDi — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 While the Serum Institute vaccine was granted permission for restricted use in emergency situations “subject to certain regulatory conditions”, the Bharat Biotech vaccine was approved “as abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode.” The Bharat Biotech vaccine was developed the Indian Council for Medical Research, a government research body. No Phase 3 Trial Data While the AstraZeneca approval relied upon Phase 3 data gathered abroad, India’s Serum Institute has not yet submitted complete data from the AstraZeneca trials being conducted in India, critics also said. Scientists and other experts questioned the meaning of the approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine while still in “clinical trial mode”. They warned that a hasty approval process could stoke vaccine hesitancy or even fuel anti-vaccine sentiments. India now joins ranks with Russia and China for approvals to #Covid19 vaccines in the absence of efficacy data sets 😳 🙄 — Anant Bhan (@AnantBhan) January 3, 2021 Phase 3 trials are usually double-blinded, with one arm of the trial participants receiving the vaccine, and the other arm getting a placebo. In case of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, the two arms are compared to see which group had participants that did not suffer from COVID-19. The extent of protection provided in the vaccine group determines its efficacy. In terms of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the DCGI relied on the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity (the ability to induce immune responses) data generated on 23,745 adult participants from the UK and Brazil which showed vaccine efficacy of 70.42%, the govenrment statement said. The efficacy results were published in The Lancet earlier in December. The Serum Institute in India is still conducting a bridge trial with 1,600 participants in India. For those spreading rumours let it be known that EUA for COVAXIN is differently conditional – in clinical trial mode EUA for COVAXIN is different from COVISHIELD because its use will be in clinical trial mode.All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial pic.twitter.com/1N8LGnhC3w — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 In case of the Bharat Biotech vaccine, the company’s founder Krishna Ella said in a press conference on Monday that the company will be able to submit phase 3 trial data by March 2021. Under the government authorization, members of the public being administered the vaccine will be tracked and monitored as if they are in a trial. However, critics said that ethically, that could be problematic, insofar as a placebo arm for the trial could not realistically be maintained: “Once the vaccine has been authorised, it’s unethical to continue Phase 3 and give placebo to participants. You cannot continue clinical trials,” said Dr Amar Jesani, an independent researcher and bioethicist pointed out. According to the DCGI, Bharat Biotech’s Phase 3 trial has already recruited 22,500 participants so far and was “found to be safe” – although it provided no further details. Other media reports, meanwhile, contradicted that statement, saying that not enough volunteers had even been registered for Phase 3 trials of the vaccine. The controversy quickly took on political tones as some leaders from opposition parties also questioned the local vaccine’s approval ahead of the completion of Phase 3 trials. An Indian government official retorted meanwhile, that the opposition’s comments were “disgraceful” and an attempt to politicise the vaccine approvals. Opaque Approval Process – Indian Watchdog Group Calls for Vaccine Transparency AstraZeneca’s India trial has already been a subject of controversy. In October 2020, a trial participant from Chennai, in southern India, sent a legal notice to Serum Institute seeking Rs 5 crores (or approximately US$ 684,000) as compensation, claiming he had suffered serious neurological impairment following one dose of the vaccine. Serum Institute threatened to counter-sue the trial participant calling the allegations in the notice “malicious and misconceived”, and it was subsequently reported that the adverse event was not vaccine-related. Dr Jesani flagged that while the trial stopped after a serious adverse event was reported in the UK, the same did not happen in India. That and other issues related to a reproted lack of transparency have stirred debates in the media about about the way in which the local arm of the AstraZeneca trial was conducted and monitored. And while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) live-streamed the 8 hour proceedings that led to the emergency authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the process in India has been comparatively opaque. The government has provided no criteria by which the vaccines were reviewed. Only a few lines of text described the meeting held to approve the vaccines. Although DCGI Dr Somani’s statement was published live, he also refused to take any questions from the press. The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), a public health watchdog, demanded that authorities provide more information on the process that had led to the clearances of the two vaccines for restricted emergency use. “We are baffled to understand what scientific logic has motivated the top experts in the SEC to approve this vaccine posthaste,” it said in a statement. AIDAN's immediate response to SEC recommendations to grant Restricted Emergency Use approval to vaccine candidates of @SerumInstIndia& @BharatBiotech@ICMRDELHI @CDSCO_INDIA_INF @BIRAC_2012 @NITIAayog @PMOIndia @ProfBhargava @drharshvardhan @GaviSeth @doctorsoumya @SuchitraElla pic.twitter.com/KuGy0CGdF5 — Malini Aisola (@malini_aisola) January 2, 2021 The statement further demanded the drug controller clarify the legal provisions under which the two vaccines were approved, and asked the regulator to share the “detailed rationale for the decision along with disclosure of the data, evidence and information” reviewed by the expert panel and drug controller. “There is a stronger case for transparency in the pandemic because of the accelerated process of vaccine regulatory approval. Globally a norm has set in with vaccine companies sharing trial data even through publications and pre-prints in the interest of public disclosure. We have unfortunately not made enough progress in India on the transparency front,” said Malini Aisola, co-convenor of AlDAN. Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation. Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Israel Approves Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine – First Country Outside North America 05/01/2021 Elaine Ruth Fletcher The mobile station, which opened Friday in a large city park, allows Israeli citizens and residents over the age of 60 to walk in and be vaccinated on the spot. BREAKING – Israel’s Ministry of Health on Tuesday approved the administration of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, making it the first country outside of North America to greenlight the US-based startup’s candidate. The announcement by Moderna said that deliveries of the vaccine to Israel would begin already in January – sharply advancing a schedule that was originally to have begun in March. “First deliveries are expected to begin shortly,” the press release stated, noting that “Israel is the third country for which Moderna has received authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine” following the US and Canada on 18 and 23 December 2020 respectively. The European Union (EU), Singapore, UK and Switzerland are also reviewing the candidate. Moderna’s vaccine is based upon a novel mRNA technology similar to that being used by Pfizer/BioNTech, already being deployed in a number of countries worldwide. The vaccine was approved against the specter of mounting COVID-19 infections in Israel, despite the massive vaccine campaign already underway: more than 1 million people have an initial Pfizer vaccine dose. Israel’s average rates of new infections, are among the highest in the world currently, with Switzerland holding one of the highest rates in western Europe. While the campaign has placed Israel at the top of the list of vaccine doses administered per-capita, it is racing against time to beat back infection rates by vaccinating more people. Israel’s average rates of new infections – which are among the highest in the world currently – are running at about 66 people per 100,000, as compared to 64 per 100,000 in the United States and 82 per 100,000 in the United Kingdom. Israel has secured around 6 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine. Together with another large order secured from Pfizer, the two vaccines should be sufficient to vaccinate most of the country’s 9 million residents even before a locally-developed vaccine – currently in Phase 2 trials – becomes available, most likely in the summer. Switzerland Delay of Moderna Vaccine Approval – Doses in Visp Can Ship Immediately To Israel Ironically, the Moderna vaccine will be imported to Israel from the Swiss-based firm Lonza, where hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses were already in production in December at the company’s manufacturing facility in Visp. In light of the Swiss and European delays in approving the Moderna vaccine, ready-to-use vaccines can be shifted to Israel for the time being, which is eager to get its order right away. Swiss approval of the Moderna vaccine by the national regulatory authority, Swissmedic, has lagged behind that of the Pfizer counterpart, which was approved by Swissmedic in December. That is despite the fact that the expert panel of the US Food and Drug Administration gave the Moderna vaccine an even higher vote of confidence than it did the Pfizer candidate, when it reviewed both vaccines in meetings only a week apart last month. While the US and China have already rolled out more than 4.5 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines, and Israel and the UK have reached or exceeded the one million mark, the rest of Europe is moving much more slowly. Switzerland’s slow start to its vaccination campaign has been the subject of sharp criticism. And among European countries, the number of vaccines administered by Switzerland have so far been negligible. Only half of the country’s Cantons have even begun their campaigns – which major efforts only set to kick off in some regions, such as the heavily populated and heavily infected Canton of Vaud, bordering Geneva, next week. The slow Swiss start to its own national rollout has become a growing focus of criticism, particularly in light of Switzerland’s high infection rates. At about 40 new cases per 100,000, Switzerland has a new infection rate that is one of the highest in western Europe outside of the United Kingdom. “In another ten days, all of the Israeli population over the age of 60 will have been vaccinated – our vaccination programme is a fiasco that is costing lives every day and will continue to destroy still for months our economy,” Swiss lawmaker Philippe Natermod, vice president of the Swiss Freel Democratic Party, (PLR) and a member of the Swiss Federal Council, lamented in a recent Tweet. Dans une dizaine de jours, toute la population israélienne de plus de soixante ans sera vaccinée. Notre programme de vaccination est un fiasco qui coûte chaque jour des vies et détruira encore pendant des mois notre économie. #yaka https://t.co/ScMhAOXXRQ — Philippe Nantermod (@nantermod) January 1, 2021 Last week, in an exclusive interview with Health Policy Watch, a senior scientist at the University of Lausanne also complained about the unnecessary loss of lives as well as lifelong cases of COVID-related disability that would occur as a result of the delayed vaccine rollout. “The Department of Health doesn’t seem to understand that in just three weeks of delay, with 4,000 new infections per day, 100 will die everyday. That means in three weeks, more than 2,000 people will die unduly,” said Dr Pierre Goloubinoff, a biologist who has been doing research on COVID-19 treatments, as a result of the pandemic. “If we could do a vaccine blitz, and vaccinate all of the high-risk population in a month, in terms of the economy it would be completely liberating.” Switzerland has also been criticised for carrying out far too few tests to adequately chart the spread of coronavirus. Switzerland has ordered approximately 13 million COVID-19 doses: 4.5 million doses from Moderna, 5.3 million from AstraZeneca, and 3 million of the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine. But in the absence of a Swissmedic approval of the Moderna vaccine, only the Pfizer vaccine doses are approved for use. And only 107,000 doses of that vaccine have been delivered so far. Vaud’s Health Minister Rebecca Ruiz told Swiss Radio RTS that regional authorities have also been left to fend for themselves in terms of setting up an adequate vaccination infrastructure – after requesting help from the army to set up mobile vaccination units. “But our request was refused, so we are left to our own devices”, she pointed out. In a series of messages conveyed by the Swiss Mission in Geneva to UN international organizations, Swiss health authorities said that the initial phases of the vaccine campaign would be focused on people over the age of 75 living in care homes, as well as health workers, in light of the limited vaccine supplies. The statements also pointedly stated that the vaccine campaign is of unprecedented logistical complexity. Image Credits: Our World in Data, Our World in Data. UK Delay of Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose – A Risky Strategy That Could Give Rise To More Virus Mutations, Some Experts Warn 04/01/2021 Madeleine Hoecklin The administration of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in mid-December. The United Kingdom’s decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being rolled out en masse in the nation is a risky strategy – not only for those getting the vaccine, but also in terms of the longer-term public health impacts such delays could have in terms of future SARS-CoV2 mutations, some experts are warning. Administering a weakened vaccine formulation, as a result of long delays between the required two vaccine doses could open the door for the more rapid evolution of SARS-CoV virus, including mutations resistant to the vaccines only just now being deployed en masse, several leading virologists have said. They spoke in the wake of Britain’s decision on 30 December to postpone the administration of the second dose of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine by as much as 4 to 12 weeks, so that more first doses could be administered right away. Delaying the second dose has the potential to generate resistant spike variants that evade the antibody responses induced by vaccines, tweeted Paul Bieniasz, a British-American virologist at Rockefeller University. “Generating a pool of hosts with just the right amount of neutralizing antibody to apply selection pressure, but also maintain sufficient levels of partially antibody-resistant virus to allow onward transmission is key here…If we let immunity wane for a little while, say 4 to 12 weeks, we just might hit the sweet spot” to generate vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV2 variants, Bieniasz added. Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist. pic.twitter.com/IVU1COZPof — Paul Bieniasz (@PaulBieniasz) January 2, 2021 While the UK’s novel attempt to provide some form of broad population immunity as fast as possible is laudable, the experts says, potential negative impacts on the mutation of the virus, and thus on vaccine effectiveness, could offset the benefits. “The most credible arguments…are: a) the possibility that ‘partial immunity’ will spawn harmful mutations; b) concern that delay means more people won’t return for 2nd dose; c) whether change in vaccine schedule will lead to more vaccine hesitancy,” said Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at University of California at San Francisco, in another series of Tweets. UK Was First In Pfizer Rollout – But Stretched Resources Leave It Hunting For More Doses The United Kingdom was the first country in the West to issue an emergency authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, followed by the launch of the mass vaccination campaign on 8 December, beginning with health workers and older people. So far, the vaccine has been administered to about 1 million people nation-wide through the National Health Service, with second shots due three weeks later. The total number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered globally, as of January 4. The decision to prioritize the administration of the first dose to as many at-risk individuals as possible over providing the two doses according to the recommended schedule was made amid the spread of a variant strain of SARS-CoV2 with a higher rate of transmission and higher viral load. These measures were justified as “allow[ing] more people to benefit from the protection provided from the first dose during the roll out phase,” states the updated UK guidelines “Greenbook.” An accompanying statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), makes the case, saying that in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, vaccine efficiency would still be at least 70% and possibly as high as 90%, from about two weeks after the first dose, based on models of the clinical trials undertaken so far. But with the absence of clear data on the length that protection from the first dose lasts, Britain’s decision could have dangerous ramifications, leaving millions of people with incomplete or waning immunity, other independent experts pointed out. “There are good reasons for giving the second dose. It is likely that the second dose is needed to generate long lived and strong immunity,” tweeted Florian Krammer, professor at the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “But it will likely also drive affinity maturation of antibodies. This will make the antibodies stronger, and potentially will allow them to better cope with new variants.” Moncef Slaoui, head of the US Government’s Operation Warp Speed rollout of COVID vaccines in the US, also criticized Britain’s decision in an interview with CBS “Face the Nation,” saying: “We always said that these vaccines would be developed on the basis of science and all decisions would be made transparently on the basis of data. Changing the decisions made…which was to give two doses of vaccine – the second dose gives you ten times higher immune response than the first – without any data, I think would not be responsible.” Meanwhile, Pfizer and BioNTech warned in a joint statement released on Monday that “the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design.” Mixing and Matching Of Vaccines also Emerges as an Issue Last week British regulators also became the first to approve a vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, which is also a two dose regimen – based on a more conventional adenovirus vector technology, and also more temperature resilient than the sensitive Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which requires ultra cold storage. British regulators have also suggested that they might allow for the mixing of different vaccine brands, as well, in some situations. According to the UK’s updated vaccination guidelines, in cases “where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule.” But while the guidelines offer vaccine mixing and matching as an option, this should only take place on very rare occasions and “every effort should be made to give [the patient] the same vaccine,” stressed Mary Ramsay, head of immunizations at Public Health England. The US media, meanwhile, has overplayed the impacts of the “mix and match” vaccine option as a part of UK vaccine strategy, Fiona Godlee, editor of The BMJ was reported to have said in a letter to the New York Times. Godlee stressed that the strategy was not a recommendation, but rather a strategy of last resort, the BBC reported. Godlee demanded that the New York Times print a correction to its previous article, which had stated that: “Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match vaccinations, Worrying Experts”. Image Credits: Flickr – Province of British Columbia, Our World in Data. India Approves 2 Vaccines For ‘Restricted Emergency Use’ Ahead of Phase 3 Trial Data 04/01/2021 Menaka Rao Dr VG Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), has said that two COVID vaccines have been approved for emergency use. He refused to take questions from the press following the announcement, however. Delhi – India’s chief drug regulator approved two COVID-19 vaccines for “restricted emergency use” in the country on Sunday, opening the doors for a mass vaccination campaign against COVID to begin in one of the world’s largest countries, and a lower middle-income country at that. However, some watchdog groups said that the review process leading up to the government’s approval had lacked transparency – and in the case case of one locally-developed vaccine, Phase 3 trials had not been completed. The approved vaccines include the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, to be manufactured at large scale in India by the Serum Institute, and an indigenous vaccine developed by India’s Council for Medical Research, and to be produced by the Hyderabad company Bharat Biotech. While the AstraZeneca vaccine was also approved last week in the United Kingdom, Indian government approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine came before Phase 3 trials had even been completed, prompting criticism over a lack of efficacy data. The fact that Bharat Biotech has not completed its Phase 3 trials, means that India will now join the ranks of China and Russia as the only countries to have approved vaccines without Phase 3 clinical trial data. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Dr VG Somani, said that the drug regulatory body approved the vaccines after “adequate examination”. Approval of the two vaccines was recommended by an expert committee of doctors who examined data from the clinical trials. The Indian government plans to first immunise 30 million healthcare workers. In this first phase, the government also plans to immunise about 270 million people above the age of 50, and those younger with comorbidities. The vaccine will be given free of cost as promised by India’s Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan. Kudos to Hon’ble PM Sh @narendramodi ji for re-establishing India as the vaccine capital of the world !Anti-national comments & cynicism of the Opposition notwithstanding, @WHO has welcomed the Indian approval of both #COVISHIELD & #COVAXIN ! Roll up your sleeves everyone ! pic.twitter.com/UqLPgWrwDi — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 While the Serum Institute vaccine was granted permission for restricted use in emergency situations “subject to certain regulatory conditions”, the Bharat Biotech vaccine was approved “as abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode.” The Bharat Biotech vaccine was developed the Indian Council for Medical Research, a government research body. No Phase 3 Trial Data While the AstraZeneca approval relied upon Phase 3 data gathered abroad, India’s Serum Institute has not yet submitted complete data from the AstraZeneca trials being conducted in India, critics also said. Scientists and other experts questioned the meaning of the approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine while still in “clinical trial mode”. They warned that a hasty approval process could stoke vaccine hesitancy or even fuel anti-vaccine sentiments. India now joins ranks with Russia and China for approvals to #Covid19 vaccines in the absence of efficacy data sets 😳 🙄 — Anant Bhan (@AnantBhan) January 3, 2021 Phase 3 trials are usually double-blinded, with one arm of the trial participants receiving the vaccine, and the other arm getting a placebo. In case of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, the two arms are compared to see which group had participants that did not suffer from COVID-19. The extent of protection provided in the vaccine group determines its efficacy. In terms of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the DCGI relied on the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity (the ability to induce immune responses) data generated on 23,745 adult participants from the UK and Brazil which showed vaccine efficacy of 70.42%, the govenrment statement said. The efficacy results were published in The Lancet earlier in December. The Serum Institute in India is still conducting a bridge trial with 1,600 participants in India. For those spreading rumours let it be known that EUA for COVAXIN is differently conditional – in clinical trial mode EUA for COVAXIN is different from COVISHIELD because its use will be in clinical trial mode.All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial pic.twitter.com/1N8LGnhC3w — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 In case of the Bharat Biotech vaccine, the company’s founder Krishna Ella said in a press conference on Monday that the company will be able to submit phase 3 trial data by March 2021. Under the government authorization, members of the public being administered the vaccine will be tracked and monitored as if they are in a trial. However, critics said that ethically, that could be problematic, insofar as a placebo arm for the trial could not realistically be maintained: “Once the vaccine has been authorised, it’s unethical to continue Phase 3 and give placebo to participants. You cannot continue clinical trials,” said Dr Amar Jesani, an independent researcher and bioethicist pointed out. According to the DCGI, Bharat Biotech’s Phase 3 trial has already recruited 22,500 participants so far and was “found to be safe” – although it provided no further details. Other media reports, meanwhile, contradicted that statement, saying that not enough volunteers had even been registered for Phase 3 trials of the vaccine. The controversy quickly took on political tones as some leaders from opposition parties also questioned the local vaccine’s approval ahead of the completion of Phase 3 trials. An Indian government official retorted meanwhile, that the opposition’s comments were “disgraceful” and an attempt to politicise the vaccine approvals. Opaque Approval Process – Indian Watchdog Group Calls for Vaccine Transparency AstraZeneca’s India trial has already been a subject of controversy. In October 2020, a trial participant from Chennai, in southern India, sent a legal notice to Serum Institute seeking Rs 5 crores (or approximately US$ 684,000) as compensation, claiming he had suffered serious neurological impairment following one dose of the vaccine. Serum Institute threatened to counter-sue the trial participant calling the allegations in the notice “malicious and misconceived”, and it was subsequently reported that the adverse event was not vaccine-related. Dr Jesani flagged that while the trial stopped after a serious adverse event was reported in the UK, the same did not happen in India. That and other issues related to a reproted lack of transparency have stirred debates in the media about about the way in which the local arm of the AstraZeneca trial was conducted and monitored. And while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) live-streamed the 8 hour proceedings that led to the emergency authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the process in India has been comparatively opaque. The government has provided no criteria by which the vaccines were reviewed. Only a few lines of text described the meeting held to approve the vaccines. Although DCGI Dr Somani’s statement was published live, he also refused to take any questions from the press. The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), a public health watchdog, demanded that authorities provide more information on the process that had led to the clearances of the two vaccines for restricted emergency use. “We are baffled to understand what scientific logic has motivated the top experts in the SEC to approve this vaccine posthaste,” it said in a statement. AIDAN's immediate response to SEC recommendations to grant Restricted Emergency Use approval to vaccine candidates of @SerumInstIndia& @BharatBiotech@ICMRDELHI @CDSCO_INDIA_INF @BIRAC_2012 @NITIAayog @PMOIndia @ProfBhargava @drharshvardhan @GaviSeth @doctorsoumya @SuchitraElla pic.twitter.com/KuGy0CGdF5 — Malini Aisola (@malini_aisola) January 2, 2021 The statement further demanded the drug controller clarify the legal provisions under which the two vaccines were approved, and asked the regulator to share the “detailed rationale for the decision along with disclosure of the data, evidence and information” reviewed by the expert panel and drug controller. “There is a stronger case for transparency in the pandemic because of the accelerated process of vaccine regulatory approval. Globally a norm has set in with vaccine companies sharing trial data even through publications and pre-prints in the interest of public disclosure. We have unfortunately not made enough progress in India on the transparency front,” said Malini Aisola, co-convenor of AlDAN. Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation. Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
UK Delay of Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose – A Risky Strategy That Could Give Rise To More Virus Mutations, Some Experts Warn 04/01/2021 Madeleine Hoecklin The administration of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in mid-December. The United Kingdom’s decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being rolled out en masse in the nation is a risky strategy – not only for those getting the vaccine, but also in terms of the longer-term public health impacts such delays could have in terms of future SARS-CoV2 mutations, some experts are warning. Administering a weakened vaccine formulation, as a result of long delays between the required two vaccine doses could open the door for the more rapid evolution of SARS-CoV virus, including mutations resistant to the vaccines only just now being deployed en masse, several leading virologists have said. They spoke in the wake of Britain’s decision on 30 December to postpone the administration of the second dose of the two-dose Pfizer vaccine by as much as 4 to 12 weeks, so that more first doses could be administered right away. Delaying the second dose has the potential to generate resistant spike variants that evade the antibody responses induced by vaccines, tweeted Paul Bieniasz, a British-American virologist at Rockefeller University. “Generating a pool of hosts with just the right amount of neutralizing antibody to apply selection pressure, but also maintain sufficient levels of partially antibody-resistant virus to allow onward transmission is key here…If we let immunity wane for a little while, say 4 to 12 weeks, we just might hit the sweet spot” to generate vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV2 variants, Bieniasz added. Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist. pic.twitter.com/IVU1COZPof — Paul Bieniasz (@PaulBieniasz) January 2, 2021 While the UK’s novel attempt to provide some form of broad population immunity as fast as possible is laudable, the experts says, potential negative impacts on the mutation of the virus, and thus on vaccine effectiveness, could offset the benefits. “The most credible arguments…are: a) the possibility that ‘partial immunity’ will spawn harmful mutations; b) concern that delay means more people won’t return for 2nd dose; c) whether change in vaccine schedule will lead to more vaccine hesitancy,” said Bob Wachter, chair of the Department of Medicine at University of California at San Francisco, in another series of Tweets. UK Was First In Pfizer Rollout – But Stretched Resources Leave It Hunting For More Doses The United Kingdom was the first country in the West to issue an emergency authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, followed by the launch of the mass vaccination campaign on 8 December, beginning with health workers and older people. So far, the vaccine has been administered to about 1 million people nation-wide through the National Health Service, with second shots due three weeks later. The total number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered globally, as of January 4. The decision to prioritize the administration of the first dose to as many at-risk individuals as possible over providing the two doses according to the recommended schedule was made amid the spread of a variant strain of SARS-CoV2 with a higher rate of transmission and higher viral load. These measures were justified as “allow[ing] more people to benefit from the protection provided from the first dose during the roll out phase,” states the updated UK guidelines “Greenbook.” An accompanying statement by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), makes the case, saying that in the case of the Pfizer vaccine, vaccine efficiency would still be at least 70% and possibly as high as 90%, from about two weeks after the first dose, based on models of the clinical trials undertaken so far. But with the absence of clear data on the length that protection from the first dose lasts, Britain’s decision could have dangerous ramifications, leaving millions of people with incomplete or waning immunity, other independent experts pointed out. “There are good reasons for giving the second dose. It is likely that the second dose is needed to generate long lived and strong immunity,” tweeted Florian Krammer, professor at the Department of Microbiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “But it will likely also drive affinity maturation of antibodies. This will make the antibodies stronger, and potentially will allow them to better cope with new variants.” Moncef Slaoui, head of the US Government’s Operation Warp Speed rollout of COVID vaccines in the US, also criticized Britain’s decision in an interview with CBS “Face the Nation,” saying: “We always said that these vaccines would be developed on the basis of science and all decisions would be made transparently on the basis of data. Changing the decisions made…which was to give two doses of vaccine – the second dose gives you ten times higher immune response than the first – without any data, I think would not be responsible.” Meanwhile, Pfizer and BioNTech warned in a joint statement released on Monday that “the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has not been evaluated on different dosing schedules as the majority of trial participants received the second dose within the window specified in the study design.” Mixing and Matching Of Vaccines also Emerges as an Issue Last week British regulators also became the first to approve a vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, which is also a two dose regimen – based on a more conventional adenovirus vector technology, and also more temperature resilient than the sensitive Pfizer mRNA vaccine, which requires ultra cold storage. British regulators have also suggested that they might allow for the mixing of different vaccine brands, as well, in some situations. According to the UK’s updated vaccination guidelines, in cases “where the same vaccine is not available, or if the first product received is unknown, it is reasonable to offer one dose of the locally available product to complete the schedule.” But while the guidelines offer vaccine mixing and matching as an option, this should only take place on very rare occasions and “every effort should be made to give [the patient] the same vaccine,” stressed Mary Ramsay, head of immunizations at Public Health England. The US media, meanwhile, has overplayed the impacts of the “mix and match” vaccine option as a part of UK vaccine strategy, Fiona Godlee, editor of The BMJ was reported to have said in a letter to the New York Times. Godlee stressed that the strategy was not a recommendation, but rather a strategy of last resort, the BBC reported. Godlee demanded that the New York Times print a correction to its previous article, which had stated that: “Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match vaccinations, Worrying Experts”. Image Credits: Flickr – Province of British Columbia, Our World in Data. India Approves 2 Vaccines For ‘Restricted Emergency Use’ Ahead of Phase 3 Trial Data 04/01/2021 Menaka Rao Dr VG Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), has said that two COVID vaccines have been approved for emergency use. He refused to take questions from the press following the announcement, however. Delhi – India’s chief drug regulator approved two COVID-19 vaccines for “restricted emergency use” in the country on Sunday, opening the doors for a mass vaccination campaign against COVID to begin in one of the world’s largest countries, and a lower middle-income country at that. However, some watchdog groups said that the review process leading up to the government’s approval had lacked transparency – and in the case case of one locally-developed vaccine, Phase 3 trials had not been completed. The approved vaccines include the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, to be manufactured at large scale in India by the Serum Institute, and an indigenous vaccine developed by India’s Council for Medical Research, and to be produced by the Hyderabad company Bharat Biotech. While the AstraZeneca vaccine was also approved last week in the United Kingdom, Indian government approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine came before Phase 3 trials had even been completed, prompting criticism over a lack of efficacy data. The fact that Bharat Biotech has not completed its Phase 3 trials, means that India will now join the ranks of China and Russia as the only countries to have approved vaccines without Phase 3 clinical trial data. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Dr VG Somani, said that the drug regulatory body approved the vaccines after “adequate examination”. Approval of the two vaccines was recommended by an expert committee of doctors who examined data from the clinical trials. The Indian government plans to first immunise 30 million healthcare workers. In this first phase, the government also plans to immunise about 270 million people above the age of 50, and those younger with comorbidities. The vaccine will be given free of cost as promised by India’s Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan. Kudos to Hon’ble PM Sh @narendramodi ji for re-establishing India as the vaccine capital of the world !Anti-national comments & cynicism of the Opposition notwithstanding, @WHO has welcomed the Indian approval of both #COVISHIELD & #COVAXIN ! Roll up your sleeves everyone ! pic.twitter.com/UqLPgWrwDi — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 While the Serum Institute vaccine was granted permission for restricted use in emergency situations “subject to certain regulatory conditions”, the Bharat Biotech vaccine was approved “as abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode.” The Bharat Biotech vaccine was developed the Indian Council for Medical Research, a government research body. No Phase 3 Trial Data While the AstraZeneca approval relied upon Phase 3 data gathered abroad, India’s Serum Institute has not yet submitted complete data from the AstraZeneca trials being conducted in India, critics also said. Scientists and other experts questioned the meaning of the approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine while still in “clinical trial mode”. They warned that a hasty approval process could stoke vaccine hesitancy or even fuel anti-vaccine sentiments. India now joins ranks with Russia and China for approvals to #Covid19 vaccines in the absence of efficacy data sets 😳 🙄 — Anant Bhan (@AnantBhan) January 3, 2021 Phase 3 trials are usually double-blinded, with one arm of the trial participants receiving the vaccine, and the other arm getting a placebo. In case of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, the two arms are compared to see which group had participants that did not suffer from COVID-19. The extent of protection provided in the vaccine group determines its efficacy. In terms of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the DCGI relied on the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity (the ability to induce immune responses) data generated on 23,745 adult participants from the UK and Brazil which showed vaccine efficacy of 70.42%, the govenrment statement said. The efficacy results were published in The Lancet earlier in December. The Serum Institute in India is still conducting a bridge trial with 1,600 participants in India. For those spreading rumours let it be known that EUA for COVAXIN is differently conditional – in clinical trial mode EUA for COVAXIN is different from COVISHIELD because its use will be in clinical trial mode.All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial pic.twitter.com/1N8LGnhC3w — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 In case of the Bharat Biotech vaccine, the company’s founder Krishna Ella said in a press conference on Monday that the company will be able to submit phase 3 trial data by March 2021. Under the government authorization, members of the public being administered the vaccine will be tracked and monitored as if they are in a trial. However, critics said that ethically, that could be problematic, insofar as a placebo arm for the trial could not realistically be maintained: “Once the vaccine has been authorised, it’s unethical to continue Phase 3 and give placebo to participants. You cannot continue clinical trials,” said Dr Amar Jesani, an independent researcher and bioethicist pointed out. According to the DCGI, Bharat Biotech’s Phase 3 trial has already recruited 22,500 participants so far and was “found to be safe” – although it provided no further details. Other media reports, meanwhile, contradicted that statement, saying that not enough volunteers had even been registered for Phase 3 trials of the vaccine. The controversy quickly took on political tones as some leaders from opposition parties also questioned the local vaccine’s approval ahead of the completion of Phase 3 trials. An Indian government official retorted meanwhile, that the opposition’s comments were “disgraceful” and an attempt to politicise the vaccine approvals. Opaque Approval Process – Indian Watchdog Group Calls for Vaccine Transparency AstraZeneca’s India trial has already been a subject of controversy. In October 2020, a trial participant from Chennai, in southern India, sent a legal notice to Serum Institute seeking Rs 5 crores (or approximately US$ 684,000) as compensation, claiming he had suffered serious neurological impairment following one dose of the vaccine. Serum Institute threatened to counter-sue the trial participant calling the allegations in the notice “malicious and misconceived”, and it was subsequently reported that the adverse event was not vaccine-related. Dr Jesani flagged that while the trial stopped after a serious adverse event was reported in the UK, the same did not happen in India. That and other issues related to a reproted lack of transparency have stirred debates in the media about about the way in which the local arm of the AstraZeneca trial was conducted and monitored. And while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) live-streamed the 8 hour proceedings that led to the emergency authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the process in India has been comparatively opaque. The government has provided no criteria by which the vaccines were reviewed. Only a few lines of text described the meeting held to approve the vaccines. Although DCGI Dr Somani’s statement was published live, he also refused to take any questions from the press. The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), a public health watchdog, demanded that authorities provide more information on the process that had led to the clearances of the two vaccines for restricted emergency use. “We are baffled to understand what scientific logic has motivated the top experts in the SEC to approve this vaccine posthaste,” it said in a statement. AIDAN's immediate response to SEC recommendations to grant Restricted Emergency Use approval to vaccine candidates of @SerumInstIndia& @BharatBiotech@ICMRDELHI @CDSCO_INDIA_INF @BIRAC_2012 @NITIAayog @PMOIndia @ProfBhargava @drharshvardhan @GaviSeth @doctorsoumya @SuchitraElla pic.twitter.com/KuGy0CGdF5 — Malini Aisola (@malini_aisola) January 2, 2021 The statement further demanded the drug controller clarify the legal provisions under which the two vaccines were approved, and asked the regulator to share the “detailed rationale for the decision along with disclosure of the data, evidence and information” reviewed by the expert panel and drug controller. “There is a stronger case for transparency in the pandemic because of the accelerated process of vaccine regulatory approval. Globally a norm has set in with vaccine companies sharing trial data even through publications and pre-prints in the interest of public disclosure. We have unfortunately not made enough progress in India on the transparency front,” said Malini Aisola, co-convenor of AlDAN. Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation. Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
India Approves 2 Vaccines For ‘Restricted Emergency Use’ Ahead of Phase 3 Trial Data 04/01/2021 Menaka Rao Dr VG Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), has said that two COVID vaccines have been approved for emergency use. He refused to take questions from the press following the announcement, however. Delhi – India’s chief drug regulator approved two COVID-19 vaccines for “restricted emergency use” in the country on Sunday, opening the doors for a mass vaccination campaign against COVID to begin in one of the world’s largest countries, and a lower middle-income country at that. However, some watchdog groups said that the review process leading up to the government’s approval had lacked transparency – and in the case case of one locally-developed vaccine, Phase 3 trials had not been completed. The approved vaccines include the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, to be manufactured at large scale in India by the Serum Institute, and an indigenous vaccine developed by India’s Council for Medical Research, and to be produced by the Hyderabad company Bharat Biotech. While the AstraZeneca vaccine was also approved last week in the United Kingdom, Indian government approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine came before Phase 3 trials had even been completed, prompting criticism over a lack of efficacy data. The fact that Bharat Biotech has not completed its Phase 3 trials, means that India will now join the ranks of China and Russia as the only countries to have approved vaccines without Phase 3 clinical trial data. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Dr VG Somani, said that the drug regulatory body approved the vaccines after “adequate examination”. Approval of the two vaccines was recommended by an expert committee of doctors who examined data from the clinical trials. The Indian government plans to first immunise 30 million healthcare workers. In this first phase, the government also plans to immunise about 270 million people above the age of 50, and those younger with comorbidities. The vaccine will be given free of cost as promised by India’s Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan. Kudos to Hon’ble PM Sh @narendramodi ji for re-establishing India as the vaccine capital of the world !Anti-national comments & cynicism of the Opposition notwithstanding, @WHO has welcomed the Indian approval of both #COVISHIELD & #COVAXIN ! Roll up your sleeves everyone ! pic.twitter.com/UqLPgWrwDi — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 While the Serum Institute vaccine was granted permission for restricted use in emergency situations “subject to certain regulatory conditions”, the Bharat Biotech vaccine was approved “as abundant precaution, in clinical trial mode.” The Bharat Biotech vaccine was developed the Indian Council for Medical Research, a government research body. No Phase 3 Trial Data While the AstraZeneca approval relied upon Phase 3 data gathered abroad, India’s Serum Institute has not yet submitted complete data from the AstraZeneca trials being conducted in India, critics also said. Scientists and other experts questioned the meaning of the approval of the Bharat Biotech vaccine while still in “clinical trial mode”. They warned that a hasty approval process could stoke vaccine hesitancy or even fuel anti-vaccine sentiments. India now joins ranks with Russia and China for approvals to #Covid19 vaccines in the absence of efficacy data sets 😳 🙄 — Anant Bhan (@AnantBhan) January 3, 2021 Phase 3 trials are usually double-blinded, with one arm of the trial participants receiving the vaccine, and the other arm getting a placebo. In case of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, the two arms are compared to see which group had participants that did not suffer from COVID-19. The extent of protection provided in the vaccine group determines its efficacy. In terms of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the DCGI relied on the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity (the ability to induce immune responses) data generated on 23,745 adult participants from the UK and Brazil which showed vaccine efficacy of 70.42%, the govenrment statement said. The efficacy results were published in The Lancet earlier in December. The Serum Institute in India is still conducting a bridge trial with 1,600 participants in India. For those spreading rumours let it be known that EUA for COVAXIN is differently conditional – in clinical trial mode EUA for COVAXIN is different from COVISHIELD because its use will be in clinical trial mode.All COVAXIN recipients to be tracked,monitored as if they’re in trial pic.twitter.com/1N8LGnhC3w — Dr Harsh Vardhan (Modi Ka Pariwar) (@drharshvardhan) January 3, 2021 In case of the Bharat Biotech vaccine, the company’s founder Krishna Ella said in a press conference on Monday that the company will be able to submit phase 3 trial data by March 2021. Under the government authorization, members of the public being administered the vaccine will be tracked and monitored as if they are in a trial. However, critics said that ethically, that could be problematic, insofar as a placebo arm for the trial could not realistically be maintained: “Once the vaccine has been authorised, it’s unethical to continue Phase 3 and give placebo to participants. You cannot continue clinical trials,” said Dr Amar Jesani, an independent researcher and bioethicist pointed out. According to the DCGI, Bharat Biotech’s Phase 3 trial has already recruited 22,500 participants so far and was “found to be safe” – although it provided no further details. Other media reports, meanwhile, contradicted that statement, saying that not enough volunteers had even been registered for Phase 3 trials of the vaccine. The controversy quickly took on political tones as some leaders from opposition parties also questioned the local vaccine’s approval ahead of the completion of Phase 3 trials. An Indian government official retorted meanwhile, that the opposition’s comments were “disgraceful” and an attempt to politicise the vaccine approvals. Opaque Approval Process – Indian Watchdog Group Calls for Vaccine Transparency AstraZeneca’s India trial has already been a subject of controversy. In October 2020, a trial participant from Chennai, in southern India, sent a legal notice to Serum Institute seeking Rs 5 crores (or approximately US$ 684,000) as compensation, claiming he had suffered serious neurological impairment following one dose of the vaccine. Serum Institute threatened to counter-sue the trial participant calling the allegations in the notice “malicious and misconceived”, and it was subsequently reported that the adverse event was not vaccine-related. Dr Jesani flagged that while the trial stopped after a serious adverse event was reported in the UK, the same did not happen in India. That and other issues related to a reproted lack of transparency have stirred debates in the media about about the way in which the local arm of the AstraZeneca trial was conducted and monitored. And while the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) live-streamed the 8 hour proceedings that led to the emergency authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the process in India has been comparatively opaque. The government has provided no criteria by which the vaccines were reviewed. Only a few lines of text described the meeting held to approve the vaccines. Although DCGI Dr Somani’s statement was published live, he also refused to take any questions from the press. The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN), a public health watchdog, demanded that authorities provide more information on the process that had led to the clearances of the two vaccines for restricted emergency use. “We are baffled to understand what scientific logic has motivated the top experts in the SEC to approve this vaccine posthaste,” it said in a statement. AIDAN's immediate response to SEC recommendations to grant Restricted Emergency Use approval to vaccine candidates of @SerumInstIndia& @BharatBiotech@ICMRDELHI @CDSCO_INDIA_INF @BIRAC_2012 @NITIAayog @PMOIndia @ProfBhargava @drharshvardhan @GaviSeth @doctorsoumya @SuchitraElla pic.twitter.com/KuGy0CGdF5 — Malini Aisola (@malini_aisola) January 2, 2021 The statement further demanded the drug controller clarify the legal provisions under which the two vaccines were approved, and asked the regulator to share the “detailed rationale for the decision along with disclosure of the data, evidence and information” reviewed by the expert panel and drug controller. “There is a stronger case for transparency in the pandemic because of the accelerated process of vaccine regulatory approval. Globally a norm has set in with vaccine companies sharing trial data even through publications and pre-prints in the interest of public disclosure. We have unfortunately not made enough progress in India on the transparency front,” said Malini Aisola, co-convenor of AlDAN. Image Credits: Flickr – Trinity Care Foundation. Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
Exclusive: Thousands Of Nigerians Put At Risk In Yellow Fever Epidemic Because Vaccines Were Delayed Amidst Second COVID Wave 04/01/2021 Paul Adepoju Healthcare workers in Nigeria fight to maintain vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ibadan, Nigeria. Several Nigerian states were unable to carry out preventative yellow fever campaigns late last year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving thousands of people at risk of developing the disease as the country now faces a new winter yellow fever outbreak, Health Policy Watch learned. In early November, Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control (NCDC) received several reports of a yellow fever-like illness affecting people in 4 states: Delta, Enugu, Bauchi and Benue. The NCDC quickly confirmed the illness was yellow fever. As of Christmas Eve, 17 deaths and 101 confirmed cases had been reported from 13 Nigerian states, with the 4 states that had first reported the infection, accounting for about 85% of cases. Epicurve of yellow fever cases in Nigeria, by epidemiological week (Epi-Week). Yellow fever, which is 10 times deadlier than COVID-19, causes headache, muscle pain, nausea and jaundice (from which it takes its name). It is entirely vaccine-preventable, with immunity lasting a lifetime once someone has been vaccinated. Speaking to Health Policy Watch, NCDC’s Head of Epidemiology Dr Jafiya Abubakar disclosed that Delta and Benue States were part of a cluster of states that were supposed to have undergone a preventive yellow fever vaccination campaign in November – which was then delayed. “They were supposed to have it earlier but because of the COVID outbreak, it wasn’t held. It was planned for November even before the [current] outbreak,” he said. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is one of several on the African continent to routinely see outbreaks of yellow fever, an acute viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes, which is entirely preventable with a vaccine, but otherwise kills about half of those who become seriously ill. It is endemic to tropical areas of Africa and Central and Southern America. Abubakar also revealed that Nigeria had previously mapped yellow fever risk across all 36 states, phasing them into clusters to prioritise vaccination. Map of Nigeria showing states and local government areas with yellow fever outbreak. He confirmed that Delta and Benue have since had the preventive vaccination campaign, with Bauchi’s to be held this month. According to WHO, the vaccine provides effective immunity within 10 days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated. Abubakar attributed Nigeria’s yellow fever outbreak to the existence of a “critical mass of people that are not immunised”. Nigeria’s Fraught History with Yellow Fever In April 2018, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus joined UNICEF representatives in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, to launch the joint Eliminate Yellow Fever Epidemics (EYE) Strategy. The strategy aims to rid the continent of these circulating outbreaks by 2026 by introducing the yellow fever vaccine into routine immunization programmes. With support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, EYE aims to vaccinate around 1.4 billion people in Nigeria and 40 other high-risk countries around the world by 2026. “The eligible age group for the vaccination campaign is from 9 months to 44 years. These are the ages that have been noticed to have missed out in initial vaccination campaigns,” Abubakar said. The Risk of An Endemic Threat As the Continent Faces Its Second COVID Wave With the emergence of a yellow fever outbreak roughly coinciding with the onset of a second wave of COVID-19 infections, Abubakar flagged how vital it is to maintain an adaptive response to the pandemic – maintaining and strengthening other critical public health services alongside COVID response. Throughout the pandemic, Nigeria has aimed to implement and utilise equipment, structures and support systems that can be adapted to multiple public health emergencies. Nigeria’s Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), which predated the COVID pandemic, have made a coordinated national response much easier to mount, in comparison to some other African and Western countries, as they work with state governments to allocate resources systematically for emergency purposes. According to Abubakar, the NCDC will continue to follow in this direction, and it has now activated EOCs in 30 states to facilitate quick yellow fever case finding during the COVID pandemic. “These centers are hubs: they are coordination centers where the teams have been trained on how to manage emergencies and crisis,” Abubakar told Health Policy Watch. “The multidisciplinary team is also multisectoral and contains all the partners. “For every outbreak, we use our resources together — human, financial and other resources and things that are required — collaboratively to respond to the outbreak. That is what we are doing. We cannot, just because we are in a pandemic, ignore outbreaks of other diseases and interventions that are needed by our communities.” PCaregivers must be reminded that yellow fever vaccination is offered at no cost for children under 9 months across the country, Abubakar said. To avert future yellow fever outbreaks, the NCDC official said more efforts and resources need to be committed to enlightening the general public on the urgent need to be vaccinated, especially as vaccines are available for free for certain age groups across the country. “We need to encourage caregivers and parents that yellow fever vaccination is given for free [to of children under 9 months] in all our health facilities. They should take advantage of that to ensure that their kids are protected against yellow fever,” Abubakar said. Image Credits: Twitter: @WHOAFRO, NCDC. New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
New Support From The Wellcome Trust – For Our Journalism In The Global South 23/12/2020 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Health care workers sensitize a Kenyan community to COVID-19 precautions. In early January 2020, as our Health Policy Watch team returned to work just after the New Year’s break, our production editor who had returned from a visit to her mother in China, called me to say in a mildly worried tone: “Hi Elaine, there is a strange virus circulating in Wuhan. I thought you should know.” Within just several weeks, we watched and wrote, and probed and wrote, as the first cases of the “novel coronavirus” spread like wildfire in the city of ten million people, to other parts of China, and then hip-hopping to Thailand, Singapore, the French Alps, an office in Germany, small communities in northern Italy, cruise ships, and beyond. Journalists crowded into the press room at Geneva’s WHO headquarters to get briefings on the spreading virus – until we understood that it was no longer safe to do so because the virus had also arrived at our doorstep. As COVID-19 captured headlines in media around the world, there has been new recognition of how important health is to social and economic development. But while a single virus came to dominate almost every aspect of our lives – from how we work, order food or do drug discovery – we realized that, as a media outlet specializing in health policy reporting, we need to constantly be getting “under the hood” of this fast-moving story. This includes examining the diverse ways in which the pandemic has manifested itself in different parts of the world. And through the lens of COVID-19, we can gain new insights into a range of other thorny health issues that haven’t gone away – including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases, drug-resistant pathogens, air pollution, climate change, and more. Health Policy Watch’s Kerry Cullinan interviewed Professor Kelly Chibale,, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT), who is studying how African populations metabolize drugs – an issue that goes beyond COVID-19. In the same way that polaroid glasses allow you to see beneath the sunlight’s glare over water to appreciate the fish, the coral reefs – and also the plastic debris otherwise concealed – COVID-19 has given us a new lens through which we can see much better. We can see how well health systems are functioning – or not; the racial and socio-economic inequalities that can hinder public health crisis response – and the importance of evidence-based political leadership. We can appreciate how climate change and ecosystem degradation are increasing pandemic risks and threatening decades of hard-won health gains. Armed with greater awareness, we can strengthen the debate about how to clear away the systemic, long-term threats we face – along with the pandemic. New Support from The Wellcome Trust In line with that vision and mission, we are pleased to announce new support from the Wellcome Trust. This will enable us to redouble efforts to report on all aspects of the pandemic by bringing on new reporters from the Global South, in turn fostering a more balanced health policy dialogue. Social distancing and mask measures at a KFC outlet in Ibadan – Health Policy Watch’s Paul Adepoju looked at how Nigerians are coming to terms with COVID. As we head into 2021, we expect that COVID-19 will continue to dominate the news for some time. And we will continue writing about pandemic trends and responses, new drug innovations, and the rollout of long-awaited COVID vaccines. But we will also explore the broader health issues, through the “COVID-19 lens” that has sharpened our insights into the challenges we face, and how we can rebound and recover – in even better shape. One key to this is a more balanced dialogue between policymakers and the public as well as between voices in the north and south. The new support we gain from the Wellcome Trust will help us to build out our “network approach” to journalism – to link global and regional health policy debates, bridge ideological divides and bring more developing country media voices into the circuit of our coverage. As Will Hall, Wellcome’s Global Policy and Advocacy Manager told us: “New digital platforms, such as Health Policy Watch, bring fresh perspectives to debates, including from low- and middle-income countries. “We are pleased to support them in this effort to amplify the voices of journalists in the global south across interconnected health challenges.” COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Services, New Delhi. Health Policy Watch’s Menaka Rao and Jyoti Pande Lavakare explored how COVID-19 cases rose this autumn, along with air pollution levels. About our Team Our small and nimble team is based in Geneva, a global health hub that is home to the World Health Organization and dozens of global health organizations. We operate under the auspices of the non-profit, Global Policy Reporting Association – which has been providing media services for over 15 years. We already have reporters corresponding from Nairobi, Ibadan, Delhi and Cape Town, as well as from New York City and London. And in 2021, we will be building out our team further into English-speaking parts of Africa; southeast Asia, western Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. Menaka Rao, Delhi Jyoti Pande Lavakare, environmental health Kerry Cullinan, Cape Town Paul Adepoju, Ibadan Says Kerry Cullinan, our Africa editor: “Health Policy Watch ensures that the voices and experiences of African policy-makers, health workers and patients are heard by global decision-makers in Geneva, providing a unique platform for an exchange of views and news.” We will be boosting our columnists to provide “Inside Views” from a diversity of regions, disciplines and perspectives. We urge you to get in touch with us by email or @HealthPolicyW with your ideas for stories and op-eds. Wellcome Trust – a new supporter of Health Policy Watch reporting in the Global South Finally, we retain as a core value that of accurate, evidence-based and independent reporting. With regards to the latter, we appreciate the complete editorial freedom accorded to us under the terms of the Wellcome Trust support. After the dark days of 2020, we sincerely hope that the New Year may indeed see further milestones in strengthening health systems, supporting health workers, and reducing the terrible burden of the pandemic on peoples, societies and economies. Sincere wishes for a brighter, and COVID-free, 2021! Elaine Ruth Fletcher Editor-in-Chief Image Credits: WHO African Region, Photo : Victoria Nthenge/Trocaire, Kerry Cullinan, P Adepoju/HP-Watch, Belur Math, Howrah, Jyoti Pande Lavakare, Courtesy of Kerry Cullinan. US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy Loading Comments... You must be logged in to post a comment.
US Congress Allocates $4B To Support Gavi Vaccine Equity Plan 23/12/2020 J Hacker The US COVID-relief package confirmed a US $4 billion investment in Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Just 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a plea to countries to honor their donor pledges to support its COVAX vaccine procurement scheme to equitably distribute at least a portion of forthcoming COVID-19 vaccines to countries around the world. Without donor support, the globall vaccine procurement facility that over 180 countries have joined, risked “becoming no more than a noble gesture”, the WHO warned. Shortly after the warnings, commitments of some US$ 2.4 billion by eight high-income countries ended the immediate crisis. And now, after a vote by the United States Congress, the funding prospects for COVAX in 2021 are looking even brighter. The US COVID-19 relief package – agreed upon on Sunday night, after a near-five-month-long gridlock – has earmarked a US$ 4 billion investment for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which along with WHO, is a co-sponsor of the COVAX initiative. GAVI launched the COVAX Facility in collaboration with WHO – with the aim of immunizing at least 20% of peple in all countries, prioritizing those at highest risk, regardless of income or development levels. It aims to distribute 2 billion doses by the end of 2021, including to 92 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that cannot afford to pay on their own. While donor commitments made in recent weeks led to last week’s announcement of procurement deals for nearly 2 billion vaccine doses – enough to vaccinate about 1 billion people, the new US aid should help the campaign go further yet. It will provide much needed support to health systems to actually carry out the vaccine campaigns – as well as enabling the purchase of further doses required to meet the 20% vaccination goal. The US investment also represents a domestic about-face after months of almost exclusively “America First” rhetoric and policies on the pandemic from lame duck President Donald Trump; the move by Congress acknowledges that, in fact, a global vaccine drive also will help hasten the end of the pandemic. USGLC President & CEO Liz Schrayer As Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the US Global leadership Coalition (USGLC), said in a statement: “As the virus is spreading anywhere in the world, Americans are not safe, and that means our current global response is simply not enough. “There’s no denying this year-end agreement was difficult and hard-fought to address many critical domestic needs. At the same time, hundreds of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out in recent months that failing to invest in a global response comes at our own peril.” “More must still be done to address the indirect impacts of the pandemic, particularly the damage its done to stabilization efforts in fragile states and on the food security of vulnerable populations around the world,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul. Schrayer also said that this “critical step in the right direction” would “directly impact America’s health and economic recovery”. COVAX: A Tough Funding Year The COVAX facility was launched to ensure equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine. Despite remaining largely uninvolved in the drafting of the Congressional bill, Trump told reporters Wednesday morning that Congress’ coronavirus relief bill “really is a disgrace” – for reasons including the several billion dollars in foreign aid. He said: “Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests, while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.” He capped his remarks with a call to raise the one-off payment to be made to most Americans from US$600 to US$2,000. Whether Trump’s remarks were merely rhetorical, or not, they followed in line with his previous announcements in April to suspend US funding to the World Health Organization, followed by his July announcement of a US withdrawal from the global health body, altogether. The US moves highlighted the delicate nature of the Organization’s resource base, which relies heavily on voluntary donations from member states as well as other charities. Until April, the US was the biggest single donor to WHO, providing about US$400 million in 2019, and accounting for around 15% of its annual budget. WHO’s programme budget for the two-year 2020-21 period amounts to about US$5.84 billion a year. While the monies are being directed to Gavi, and not WHO, the bi-partisan approval by Congress of the COVID global vaccine aid, as part of domestic COVID bailout measures, suggests the winds of change that are blowing, ahead of the inauguration of US president-elect, Joe Biden. And while Biden will still have to win the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate for other domestic and global public health spending initiatives, some things can also be done by executive order. For instance, Biden has declared his intention to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement as well as halting the process of withdrawl from the WHO, which was only supposed to take effect in July, 2021. Image Credits: Ennoti/Flickr, USGLC/Flickr, CIO Look/Flickr. This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy
This Research Centre Wants Your Liver – If You’re From Africa 23/12/2020 Kerry Cullinan Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town CAPE TOWN – A new antiretroviral drug was supposed to be a game-changer for South Africa, which has one of the largest HIV-positive populations in the world. The drug, dolutegravir, was cheap, had few side effects, and – most importantly – it suppressed the virus quickly. But after a few months on the treatment, many African women began experiencing significant weight gain. A clinical study published in The Lancet in October this year showed that one in five were clinically obese after 96 weeks of treatment, running the risk of cardiovascular problems and diabetes. These unexpected side effects were in patients that had been excluded from the initial clinical trials, as historically, medicines have been optimised for people in the Global North. To address this bias and improve the treatment outcomes for millions of African people, Professor Kelly Chibale, founder and director of the Holistic Drug Discovery and Development (H3D) Centre at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa, is turning his attention to how African populations metabolize drugs. Dosing regimens are optimised for Caucasians One of the things Chibale is doing is ‘collecting’ livers. Specifically, he is assessing the livers of African patients for the African Liver Project, which is investigating the African microbiome – the microorganisms in various parts of the body or the combined genetic material of all the microbes, including bacteria and viruses, that live inside people on his continent. “Africans account for 15% of the world’s population, and 25% of the global disease burden,” he says. “But they are involved in less than 2% of clinical trials that happen here.” Dosing regimens – meaning the dosage and the frequency a medicine is taken – are optimized for the populations involved in the trial: typically caucasians. This is a trend that exists across nearly all medical sciences, from treatment design to vaccine development. Although the COVID-19 crisis that has gripped the whole world has highlighted the need for diversity in clinical trial research, the conversation goes beyond COVID-19 and it is only just beginning. And even as awareness grows, three-quarters of COVID-19 treatment trials still exclude pregnant women. “African patient responses to the medicines are varied and accompanied by suboptimal treatment outcomes in some instances,” adds Chibale, who is also the Neville Isdell Chair in African-centric Drug Discovery and Development and a professor of organic chemistry at UCT. One of the reasons for such variable responses is down to genetic polymorphism: genetic differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs in the liver. For example, for one of the five drug-metabolizing enzymes there is a variation between Africans and Caucasians in its gene coding. The liver is the major organ where metabolism occurs, and five drug-metabolizing enzymes in the liver are responsible for metabolizing 90% of all medicines. People are either slow, normal or fast metabolizers. Slow metabolizers have too much of the drug in their system which leads to adverse effects, and likely poor patient adherence. Ultra-fast metabolizers have suboptimal levels of the drug in their system, which leads to poor efficacy and disease-related morbidity. In a number of cases where African patients have experienced unexpected side effects, the participants in the drug trials had normal or fast metabolisms, whereas the Africans were slower metabolizers. They experienced more drug toxicity because they were unable to process the drug fast enough. Look at the drug efavirenz, a first-line treatment for HIV/AIDS, for example. Its main route of metabolism involves the cytochrome P450 2B6 (CYP2B6) enzyme. Mutations of this enzyme may lead to reduced metabolism leading to higher efavirenz exposures. These CYP2B6 mutations are more common in patients with African heritage. “One way to address these variations is to have more clinical trials in Africa. Our people have to understand that taking part in clinical trials will help them,” Chibale rationalises. “It is a necessary sacrifice to be part of the solution. The safety of the medicines we take has been established because someone else sacrificed and took part in a clinical trial.” Creating a liver ‘bank’ Kelly Chibale in the H3D laboratory in Cape Town Chibale’s solution is to do more pre-clinical work even before getting to the clinical trials. “In the past, 40% of the failures in clinical trials were due to suboptimal drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, which is basically what the body does to the medicine,” he says. “This was until the pharmaceutical industry realised that we needed to front-load drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics pre-clinical studies much earlier on, to gain an understanding of what the human body is likely to do to a drug,” says Chibale. ‘Front-loading’ involves incubating potential drugs with liver fractions that contain drug-metabolising enzymes. Researchers are then able to examine how human livers process the drugs. By the time drugs get to human trials, scientists are able to make much better predictions about what doses to use. This is done in conjunction with laboratory test-tube testing the drug, then ethically on animals like rodents and non-human primates to understand its efficacy and safety. Chibale aims to refine this further, developing tools that will help to identify which drugs are more likely to perform well in African patients, predict what the optimal human dose is likely to be in specific African populations, provide useful data for targeted clinical trial design and eventually for the establishment of better-directed dosing regimens. The African Liver Project objectives include creating a unique and novel biobank of well-characterised African human liver tissue, generating liver cells (known as hepatocytes) and subcellular liver fractions, and investigating the metabolism of study drugs across different tissue in matching African populations in the same way as has been done for the Caucasian derived human livers and tissue. This would create a platform for hypothesis testing before clinical trials are carried out. The proposed in vitro (test tube) experiments would be cheaper to design and perform to get data that can be extrapolated to pharmacokinetics in humans using mathematical models. To do this, the H3D team needs to get access to diverse African livers to see how their drug-metabolising enzymes work – but most of the liver fractions available have been donated by Caucasians in the Global North and need to be bought for large amounts of money from Western companies. To address the lack of African liver fractions, the H3D Centre has formed a partnership with the UCT Liver Transplant Centre and has ethical approval to process African human liver tissue from discarded or diseased livers, and examine how the drug-metabolising enzymes present in the liver fractions process drugs. But Chibale would love to have similar arrangements with liver transplant centres throughout the continent to increase the samples from which to derive robust data and because there are many genetic differences between populations on the continent. “To do this at scale, we need more transplant hospitals in South Africa and other regions of Africa to collect enough samples. Then, with enough African-derived human liver tissue samples collected, we want to then start generating metabolism data, starting with existing medicines for any disease, whether it’s diabetes or cancer,” says Chibale. “You know why? Because then this data can help any company really look at their own medicine that they’ve been giving out to African patients, and reformulate it in terms of the right dose,” says Chibale. Studying the effects of antibiotics But drug-metabolising enzymes aren’t the only factors in determining how patients process drugs. Research has shown that the microorganisms that live in the body, including bacteria, viruses and fungi – known as the microbiome – are also important. “Literally in the last decade, there has been an accumulation of evidence of the involvement of the gut microbiome in the metabolism of medicines, including having an impact on what happens in the liver,” says Chibale. “This means if we just optimise medicine for liver metabolism, we will not necessarily get it right. Why the microbiome is so important is, first of all, clearly genetic differences and there is overwhelming evidence of this.” H3D’s more recent initiative, the African Gut Microbiome project, is aimed at investigating the impact of microorganisms found in various parts of the body on the metabolising of drugs. It is also aimed at studying the effect of antibiotics on the gut microbiome and the resultant changes in drug metabolism of a range of commonly used medicines. The idea is that these initial in vivo (human) studies will inform subsequent studies around the African gut microbiome, with the goal of establishing relevant preclinical research tools that mimic those aspects of Africa-specific microbiomes that are involved in variable drug responses. But socio-economic and physical environments in which patients live also affect how a patient can process drugs. The diet of a person has a major role to play in how the body functions, while the physical environment affects a person’s resilience. Chibale’s centre is unique in that it is based at a university rather than being a stand-alone company or being part of a drug company. He hopes it can become an example for other parts of the world, such as South America. Funding comes from a variety of sources from the South African government to philanthropic organisations and innovative pharmaceutical companies. H3D has the strategic advantage for developing Africa-specific pharmaceutical research tools because of its location on the African continent providing easy access to African patients and researchers who are interested in addressing global health and health inequality issues. Chibale has built a network of collaboration involving the chemistry, biology and pharmacology departments at the university, and has an 80-person staff, that includes post-doctoral scientists and students from all over the world. It’s been a long journey for Chibale from a village in northern Zambia and townships in the Zambian Copperbelt, to a PhD at Cambridge University, then research positions at Liverpool University and the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. For the past 24 years, he has been in Cape Town with his wife and three sons. Always up for new lessons, Chibale confides that he has recently joined Twitter and realised that he needs to be part of the push-back against misinformation. “Life is about taking risks and sacrifice. We can never achieve anything if we live in fear. Look what the world has been able to achieve in the face of COVID-19, a vaccine in an unprecedented time,” he says. Image Credits: Kerry Cullinan. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts