Wellcome-funded initiative to unlock secrets of human development 25/07/2019 Editorial team [Wellcome Press Release] A world-first research project will unravel how human embryos develop in the first weeks and months after fertilisation, improving our understanding of fertility, birth defects and regenerative medicine. The £10 million Wellcome-funded Human Developmental Biology Initiative (HDBI) will build a ‘family tree’ of how cells divide and specialise following fertilisation*, to understand how tissues and organs develop and reveal new insights into how this process can go wrong. Coloured scanning electron micrograph of a human embryo at the eight-cell stage. Photo: Science Photo Library Around 3% of babies are born with developmental defects – problems that often start very early in pregnancy such as heart defects, spina bifida and cleft palate. But we know very little about why and how they happen. The Initiative will create ‘family histories’ of cells from four particular time-points in development or organ systems – the early human embryo, the brain and spinal cord, the blood and immune system, and the heart and lungs. For many years, developmental studies have relied on cellular and animal models. While this has provided important information, it’s also become clear that our understanding of early human development remains extremely limited. To address this, the HDBI will tackle some of the biggest challenges that are holding the field back. Very few labs have access to human embryo tissue samples meaning that key pieces of research that will underpin the field have yet to be carried out. And when available, this tissue is incredibly diverse, reflecting the genetic and environmental origins, making insights hard to define. By bringing the research community together, along with recent advances in embryo and organoid models, more sophisticated imaging techniques and genome editing mean that researchers can now gain an unprecedented insight into human development. Professor Rick Livesey, based at UCL and one of the researchers leading the HDBI, said: “We know surprisingly very little about how humans develop. By understanding what is ‘normal’ in development we will be able to see how things can go wrong, offering new avenues for research. In addition, the insights from this work could help regenerative medicine reach its full potential.” The project will involve donated human embryos and human foetal tissue. The UK has a strong regulatory and legal framework and the HDBI will work within and respect these regulations. The Initiative will actively work to consider the ethical issues raised by this growing area of research and includes a specific ethics programme and public engagement programme. Andrew Chisholm, head of cellular and developmental science at Wellcome, said: “This new initiative brings together a diverse group of biologists from across the country to share their expertise and work together to build a ‘family tree’ of how different cells and tissues come together to form organs. This will create a treasure trove of data and technologies that will be made available to the community. “Thanks to new techniques and technologies to study human development the HDBI will provide insights that could help our understanding of developmental disorders The Human Development Biology Initiative is a five-year programme which involves researchers from UCL, the Francis Crick Institute, the Babraham Institute, University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, the University of Dundee and the University of Newcastle. In addition, it will partner closely with the MRC-Wellcome Human Developmental Biology Resource. Image Credits: Science Photo Library. Making Tough Vaccine Choices Amidst The Ebola Public Health Emergency 24/07/2019 Editorial team WHO’s declaration of the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) a Public Health Emergency of International Concern has been shadowed by growing questions over vaccine strategy in a crisis that has dragged on for over a year, and now threatens to spread across borders. Until now, a ring vaccination strategy focusing on health workers and direct contacts of Ebola victims has been used, but questions are growing over whether that can really snuff out the epidemic, and whether a second vaccine should also be deployed alongside the first-line Merck vaccine that has proven so highly effective. Two senior Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) officials – Dr Isabelle Defourny, MSF Director of Operations, and Dr Anne-Marie Pegg, Clinical Lead for Epidemic Response and Vaccination, who is currently in DRC – unwrap these issues here. Nurse preparing the Merck Ebola vaccine in Bikoro, DRC, in 2018. Photo: MSF/Louise Annaud Health Policy Watch: What’s happening with the response to the Ebola epidemic in DRC? Dr Isabelle Defourny Dr Isabelle Defourny: The Ebola epidemic in east Democratic Republic of Congo is still not contained. More than 1,600 deaths from the Ebola virus have been reported since the outbreak was first declared on August 1, 2018, and, during the first seven months of the epidemic (August 2018 to March 2019), over 1,000 confirmed and probable cases were declared. Between March and June 2019, this number doubled, with 1,000 new cases in what’s a short period of time. The end of April was the peak, with more than 120 cases a week. There’s still a huge amount of new cases, between 75 and 100 every week. In a context like this, it’s extremely difficult to accurately track the epidemic’s chains of transmission. During the outbreak in 2014, all that could be done was to isolate patients and administer them largely ineffective drugs. With the vaccines and experimental drugs available to us in 2019, we’re now able to offer people the chance to protect themselves individually as well as access to promising treatments. According to the information provided after the epidemic broke out, most confirmed cases’ personal contacts were vaccinated and then monitored by the Ministry of Health’s teams. Very probably, this helped contain the epidemic for a while. It’s the first time vaccination has been implemented on such a large scale, which is an extremely positive development. HPW: Is this approach still possible today? ID: Let’s say it needs to be adapted and enhanced. Right now, “ring” vaccination is being used. This entails vaccinating anyone who’s been in contact with someone infected with Ebola as well as all of their contacts. The reasoning behind the method isn’t bad per se. But, implementing it is time-consuming and challenging (problems with identifying each and every person’s individual contacts) and it’s not adapted to the insecurity affecting North Kivu. In addition, the number of people vaccinated is too small to contain the spread of the epidemic. The teams also have issues transporting from Kinshasa vaccines that must be stored at a constant temperature of -60°C. HPW: A change of strategy is therefore necessary to contain the epidemic? ID: Absolutely. In fact, in May, the SAGE group’s experts recommended modifying the vaccination strategy in DRC so that more people can be vaccinated. Until now, the main obstacle to implementing extended vaccination has been the small stock of Merck vaccine — the only one shown to be effective in an epidemic. According to the WHO’s latest information, 600,000 Merck vaccine doses are now available.* If this is the case, there’s no longer any good reason for not immediately stepping up vaccination. People in DRC understand the usefulness of vaccination and, in fact, are asking to be immunised. However, with just around 50 contacts of one confirmed case vaccinated, it’s likely that only one-quarter to one-third of those at risk are protected. DRC’s stock of vaccines is extremely low, usually less than 1,000 doses. With its supply only sporadic, and issues with contact tracing, we’re not yet able to say this is an emergency response strategy. Whereas some anticipate a rapid end to the epidemic, we see no signs to back up such predictions. Quite the contrary as there’ve been alerts only recently in Uganda and near the border with south Sudan. Other vaccines exist. They should be tested in an epidemic zone to be prepared should this one spread and to be able to dispose of a wider range of vaccines in the event of future outbreaks. HPW: Regarding the Johnson & Johnson vaccine – I understand it hasn’t been field tested as rigorously as the Merck version, and it takes longer to confer immunity, but once it does so, it actually protects against multiple strains of Ebola and is available in 1.5 million doses. Can you just clarify then the opportunities as well as communications barriers to deploying this now that a PHEIC has been declared; and if used in a periphery zone, periphery in DRC, or border zones of neighboring countries? Dr Anne-Marie Pegg Dr Anne-Marie Pegg: Obviously, with over 170,000 doses now administered, there is more data available with regards to vaccine tolerance, as well as “real-world” conditions for vaccination activity. It is true that studies of a similar scale and intent have not been conducted with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but immunobridging data (which refers to an evaluation of human immunogenicity against a model that describes immunogenicity and survival in non-human primates) supports clinical benefit. Additionally safety studies in well over 2,000 participants support the safety of the vaccine. As mentioned, once the full 2-dose regimen is received, it protects not only against Ebola Zaire (the strain of virus responsible for this epidemic) but also other strains of Ebola virus, as well as Marburg (another hemorrhagic-fever-causing virus). The optimal strategy for the deployment of this vaccine remains under discussion and review. If the vaccine were to be deployed in the “periphery” of the epidemic, this could mean zones that are neighbouring those currently experiencing high transmission (particularly those where population movements are known to be frequent). It could also be used in a preventative manner for front line health workers and others who may be at high risk in neighbouring countries (where the Merck vaccine has been deployed) in order to maintain the Merck stock for reactive efforts. HPW: Regarding the Merck vaccine – what is hindering Merck production of more doses? Is it a financial barrier or something else? Particularly since this vaccine was developed with Canadian public funds and then merely purchased by Merck, it would seem there is a public obligation to speed things up. Finally in terms of counting remaining doses, of the original 300,000 vaccine doses made available some 170,000 were already administered. Then even if the dose was halved, it would seem that only about 430,000 doses (available now) remain at that?* AP: That would need to be clarified with Merck directly. Recently there has been a renewed scale-up of production, with additional doses said to available in the early part of 2020. However the supply chain as to how many will be available and with what delivery schedule (all at once? several thousand per month?) remains unclear. HPW: Anything else you care to note about the complexity of the community outreach mission on the ground. Please include any other messages that you believe are important. AP: MSF supports expanding access to vaccination, regardless of the vaccine deployed in these efforts. Effective vaccine is one real innovation that has come out of research done in previous outbreaks, and it has the potential to significantly alter the course of the epidemic. Vaccination demand is high – but the current strategy is not well adapted to the actual epidemic situation. This is not a criticism of the efforts deployed by surveillance teams – it is the reality of trying to track a huge volume of people in a complex, often insecure context with high population density and significant population movement. A strategy more adapted to this context – such as geographic targeting of hotspots – needs to be deployed quickly and efficiently to rapidly scale up the numbers of at-risk people who are able to be vaccinated. *According to a subsequent statement by Merck to Health Policy Watch, there are currently 245 1.0mL doses available now for shipment to the DRC, yielding 490,000 vaccines at the .5 mL strength currently being used by emergency teams, while more production is planned over the coming 6-18 months. Dr Isabelle Defourny is a specialist doctor in gynaecology-obstetric and has worked in emergency and medical projects of MSF for nearly a decade. Isabelle is Director of Operations for MSF in France, a role she held since 2015. Dr Anne-Marie Pegg has worked with MSF for 11 years in different contexts, including armed conflicts and epidemics, as emergency coordinator and medical coordinator. She is now part of the medical department of MSF in Paris. Image Credits: MSF/Louise Annaud. Global Innovation Index 2019 Released, Focus On The Future of Medical Innovation 24/07/2019 David Branigan The Global Innovation Index 2019 was released today with an overarching theme of “Creating Healthy Lives – The Future of Medical Innovation.” In addition to ranking countries according to their innovation performance on 80 indicators, this year’s Index also analyses the medical innovation landscape, and how emerging innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI), genomics, and mobile health applications, will impact delivery of healthcare in developed and developing countries. The Global Innovation Index 2019 found that overall, “Switzerland is the world’s most-innovative country followed by Sweden, the United States of America (U.S.), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (U.K.),” according to a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) press release. The Index also identifies India, South Africa, Chile, Israel and Singapore as regional leaders, and found China, Viet Nam and Rwanda topping their income groups. In the overview section, which introduces this year’s theme of “The Future of Medical Innovation,” the Index poses key questions the edition aims to address: “What is the potential impact of medical innovation on society and economic growth, and what obstacles must be overcome to reach that potential? How is the global landscape for research and development (R&D) and medical innovation changing? What health challenges do future innovations need to address and what types of breakthroughs are on the horizon? What are the main opportunities and obstacles to future medical innovation and what role might new policies play?” From its analysis, five key messages emerge: “High quality and affordable healthcare for all is important for sustainable economic growth and the overall quality of life of citizens. While significant progress has been achieved across many dimensions over the last decades, significant gaps in access to quality healthcare for large parts of the global population remain. Medical innovations are critical for closing the gaps in global healthcare provision. These innovations are happening across multiple dimensions, including core sciences, drug development, care delivery, and organizational and business models. In particular, medical technology related innovations are blossoming, with medical technology patents more numerous and growing at a faster path than pharmaceutical patents for the last decade. However, some challenges need to be overcome—notably, a decline in pharmaceutical R&D productivity and a prolonged process for deploying health innovations due to complex health ecosystems. The convergence of digital and biological technologies is disrupting healthcare and increasing the importance of data integration and management across the healthcare ecosystem. New digital health strategies need to focus on creating data infrastructure and processes for efficient and safe data collection, management, and sharing. Emerging markets have a unique opportunity to leverage medical innovations and invest in new healthcare delivery models to close the healthcare gap with more developed markets. Caution should be taken to ensure that new health innovations, and their related costs, do not exacerbate the health gap between the rich and poor. To maximize the potential for future health innovation, it is important to encourage collaboration across key actors, increase funding from public and private sources, establish and maintain a skilled health workforce, and carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of medical innovations.” “Innovation in the field of health is now being increasingly driven by data (Internet of Things) and artificial intelligence, in both diagnosis and prognosis. Unprecedented challenges need urgent attention in ethical, social and economic dimensions,” said Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD Executive Director for Global Indices and co-editor of the Global Innovation Index 2019, quoted in the press release. “As the power of medical decisions moves farther away from medical professions, regulators, governments, business and civil society need to establish limits to the ways in which the holders of big data and advanced algorithms can make or influence health decisions. In the absence of swift action, innovation in health and medicine may become a significant source of inequality,” he said. US Pick For UN Ambassador Disputes Sexual & Reproductive Rights, Draws Opposition 23/07/2019 David Branigan A United States congressional committee met today to vote on whether or not to recommend Andrew Bremberg for confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva. Bremberg is a controversial pick due to his extreme stance against abortion and his pledge to vote against any UN resolution that includes the right to abortion where legal, even in cases of sexual violence. In the lead-up to the vote by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, 38 US and international organisations sent an open letter to Senate leaders opposing the nomination of Bremberg and calling on all Senators to vote against his confirmation. “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva is a position of critical importance. The person occupying this role will be responsible for representing the U.S. in efforts to address some of the world’s biggest challenges, including health, human rights, and humanitarian crises and the resulting refugee and migration trends. Mr. Bremberg’s confirmation hearing, written responses, and previous record in government indicate he will not only obstruct, but actively work against the interests of individuals and communities worldwide who face the greatest barriers to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice,” stated the letter. Andrew Bremberg responding to questions at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Andrew Bremberg, currently serving as Assistant to the President and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, previously worked as Aide to Republican Senator and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Today’s closed hearing vote will also determine the recommendation of Kelly Craft as US Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. Craft, who’s family own a major coal company and is a major Republican donor, currently serves as US Ambassador to Canada. In an exchange between Bremberg and Senator Robert Menendez at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez cited the recent US threat to veto a UN Security Council resolution on gender-based violence in conflict over a reference to survivor’s access to sexual and reproductive health, asking: “Should victims of sexual violence be able to terminate the pregnancy where legal?” Bremberg replied: “Senator, I don’t believe that abortion is a moral solution to any problem.” Planned Parenthood Global responded in a Tweet saying: “The Trump admin continues to nominate anti-rights players to critical diplomatic positions, jeopardizing women’s and human rights protections. E.g. Andrew Bremberg, nom for US Ambassador to UN in Geneva, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape.” Bremberg, a top pick of US President Donald Trump, is also chief architect of Trump’s expanded version of the “global gag rule,” an international policy that prohibits any foreign NGO that receives US funding from providing abortion services, counseling or referrals. It requires these organisations to certify that they do not engage in abortion-related activities, and forces them “to choose between providing a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health care and receiving critical US funding,” according to a report by the International Women’s Health Coalition, one of the signatories to the open letter. Despite US attempts to restrict abortion services through the gag rule, evidence shows that the rule actually increased rates of abortion by 40 percent between 2001-2008 in areas where the policy was in effect, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Global Health. The study explains that this rate is associated with the rise of pregnancies in these areas, which are related to the policy’s impact on limiting family planning services including modern contraception. After being rescinded by President Barack Obama in 2009, the gag rule was reinstated by President Trump in 2017 and renamed as “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” Under this policy, the rule was expanded beyond just international family planning assistance to include all US funding for “global health assistance,” amounting to some US$ 9 billion. According to the expanded policy, global health assistance “includes funding for international health programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS; maternal and child health; nutrition; infectious diseases, including malaria and tuberculosis; global health security; and voluntary family planning and reproductive health.” A staunch advocate of the global gag rule, Bremberg, in his opening statement at the 20 June hearing, said: “If confirmed, I will advocate for reforms at UN organizations to protect US sovereignty and the broader world order we have fought so hard to create. We contribute more to the United Nations than any other country. It is our duty to ensure these funds are spent effectively, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with American values and interests.” If recommended by the Committee in today’s vote, Bremberg’s confirmation will still be subject to a vote by the full Senate. DR Congo Health Minister Resigns After President Takes Control Of Ebola Emergency 22/07/2019 Editorial team The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Health Minister, Oly Iluga, resigned Monday, following his removal Saturday as the head of the country’s Ebola response – after the country’s President Felix Tshisekedi placed management of the crisis under direct presidential supervision. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga speaking at the World Health Assembly in May 2019. “As a result of your decision to place the response to the Ebola outbreak under your direct supervision… I hereby submit my resignation as health minister,” Oly Ilunga wrote to President Felix Tshisekedi, in a letter in French, posted on Ilunga’s Twitter page. “As in any war, because that is what this is, the lines of authority must be clearly identified and defined. There cannot be several centres of decision-making for risk of creating confusion…” Iluga also voiced his concerns over the possible introduction of a second experimental vaccine into the battle against the deadly virus, calling it an “experiment.” Proponents of introducing the second vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, have pushed to deploy the 1.5 million available doses of the vaccine in peripheral zones where Ebola could potentially spread, reserving use of the field-tested Merck vaccine for front-line response. Only 300,000 doses of the Merck vaccine have been produced, and more than 164,000 people have already been vaccinated; although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. But Iluga said that it would be “illusory” to think that the new J&J vaccine, which requires two doses over the course of several weeks to provoke immunity, could play a decisive role in the course of the Ebola epidemic. Iluga’s resignation followed on the heels of WHO’s announcement last Wednesday (17 July) of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) during a week of heightened concern over possible spread of Ebola beyond the borders of DRC and into neighboring Uganda and Rwanda, as well as Burundi and South Sudan. While no fresh Ebola cases have yet been reported outside of DRC, Uganda went on high alert after an infected fish-monger visited a Ugandan market in a border community on 11 July, repeatedly vomiting in the public market, before returning to DRC where she died on 15 July. WHO officials said at last week’s press conference announcing the Ebola emergency that discussions were underway with the DRC government about deployment of the second vaccine. Previous Ministry of Health reservations had centred around concerns that introduction of a second vaccine might stimulate community misunderstandings, after a hard-fought campaign to win support for the use of the Merck vaccine in Ebola-affected communities. The Merck vaccine has been deployed in a “ring vaccine” strategy, immunizing health workers and community members suspected of having come into contact with other Ebola victims. However, judging from the 32 new Ebola cases that were reported by the DRC Ministry of Health over just the past two days, Friday and Saturday, that strategy has not yet managed to break the chain of continued infection, particularly in the North Kivu city of Beni, where 16 of those new cases were reported. Some 1737 people have died so far from Ebola since the outbreak began on 1 August, while 729 have recovered, according to the most recent DRC Health Ministry report. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga’s letter of resignation, posted today on his Twitter account @OlyIlunga. Image Credits: WHO/Cipriani. Sugar In Sodas, Fruit Juices May Increase Cancer Risks, Even With A Small Daily Intake 22/07/2019 Catherine Saez A new BMJ study by French researchers has reinforced the link between consumption of sugar-laced sodas & fruit juices and cancer incidence, in particular breast cancer. The study – the largest ever of its kind – is significant because while the link between sugar consumption and diabetes, obesity, and hypertension has been well documented, there have been fewer studies on sugary drinks as a cancer risk, the authors note. The BMJ study, “Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort,” involving 101,257 adults, including 79,724 women, found an increase in daily sugary drink consumption of 100 ml was associated with a sharp raise of overall cancer incidence as well as of breast cancer. According to Eloi Chazelas, co-author, “We observed that a 100mL per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks (which represents a small glass) was associated with approximately an 18% increased risk of overall cancer, and approximately 22% for breast cancer.” In specific sub-analyses, both pure fruit juices and other sugary drinks also were associated with an increased overall risk of cancer, he told Health Policy Watch. Participants came from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort of an even larger Franco-Belgium study examining the relationship between nutrition and health, in terms of not only cancer incidence, but also cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The study began in 2009 with participants added on a rolling basis until 2018; some participants were followed for as long as 9 years, with a median period of 5 years, with the average age of participants 42 years. The study examined consumption of 97 sugary drink items and 12 artificially sweetened beverage items. The sugary drinks included fruit juices comprising 100 percent fruit juice, without added sugar. Asked about the study’s findings, WHO Senior External Relations Officer Menno van Hilten told Health Policy Watch that WHO has not so far systematically reviewed potential associations of sugar consumption with cancer risks. WHO has not been looking at cancer as an outcome of free sugars consumption yet,” he said, adding that WHO also doesn’t comment on individual studies. Rather, WHO works on systematic reviews of evidence once evidence has accumulated. However, overall, WHO has been pressing for stronger policy measures to cut sugar consumption, including guidelines recommending strict limitations in sugar consumption, including in sugary drinks, due to its already well-documented links to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It has also supported policies to raise awareness on the health hazards brought by sugary drinks as well as policy measures that make healthier food choices cheaper and more accessible. Sugar in Drinks: Why Can It Increase Cancer Risk, Not Only Diabetes? Sugary drinks and the sugar they contain are already known risk factors for obesity, weight gain, insulin resistance, and increased proinflammatory markers, all of which are risk factors for cancer. But a direct link between sugary drinks and cancer has been less explored, according to the authors, with very few prospective studies conducted on the association between sugary drinks and individual cancer sites. Mechanisms underlying a link between sugary drinks and cancer might involve insulin resistance, according to the study, as foods with a comparatively higher glycaemic index, cause a rapid rise in blood sugar levels, or glycaemic load, and have been linked with breast cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and diabetes-related carcinomas. Additionally, sugary drink consumption tends to increase weight gain, further adding to their cancer risks: “Excess weight is a strong risk factor for mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophageal (adenocarcinoma), stomach (cardia), pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, colorectal, breast (postmenopause), ovarian, endometrial, prostate (advanced), and kidney cancers,” the study notes, building on previous results. But beyond weight gain, sugary drinks might promote gains in visceral adiposity independently of body weight, according to the study. Visceral adiposity, which refers to fat accumulation around the visceral organs, is responsible for much higher chronic disease risk than fat on the thighs, NutriNet-Santé study coordinator Dr Mathilde Touvier told Health Policy Watch. At this stage, it seems the authors cannot say whether different types of sugar and their different sources produce different effects in the body, and additional research is planned in the context of a new project of the NutriNet-Santé study. The study found that the median sugar content for sugary drinks was 10.7g/100ml, while most public health agencies set the recommended level at zero. Only water is recommended, even if unsweetened coffee or tea can also participate to the daily liquid intake. Can the same conclusions be drawn about sugary foods and cancer? According to Touvier, very few studies have been carried out so far and the topic will be investigated in NutriNet-Santé soon. 100 Percent Fruit Juices Also in Culprit Group; What About Whole Fruits? For those who thought that unsweetened fruit juices were healthy, the conclusion of the study is brutal. Making up 45 percent of all sugary drinks that are consumed overall, 100 percent fruit juices also were positively associated with an overall increased rate of cancer. If fruit juice is unhealthy, why does WHO recommend eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding starchy roots)? According to Touvier and Chazelas, “entire fruits contain more dietary fibres,” and this means that the body absorbs the sugar contained much more slowly, leading to a lower overall glycaemic load than for fruit juice. Whole fruits also help satiate the appetite more rapidly than juice, as they said “eating an orange is more efficient in filling the stomach than drinking the juice of one orange.” 100% fruit juices generally contain high levels of simple sugar, sometimes higher than regular soda, and their glycaemic indexes are higher than that of whole fruits, the study found. The recommendation on fruit juices in France is “less than one glass per day.” Artificial Sweeteners Off the Hook, Not a Blank Check While study results partly exonerate artificially sweetened drinks, Touvier told Health Policy Watch that those results should be taken cautiously, because the number of consumers of artificially sweetened beverages was limited, as well as the amounts consumed. Touvier, who also heads the Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN) in Paris, warned about drawing hasty conclusions about artificial sweeteners not having an impact on cancer incidence. “The message from this paper should definitively not be to switch from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened beverages.” The adverse cardiometabolic health effects of artificial sweeteners have been reported and some experimental studies suggested potential adverse effects, she explained, adding that further investigation is needed. For example, there is a lack of human data on cocktails of artificial sweeteners and other food additives, and a large-scale project is being launched by NutriNet-Santé on that topic. In particular, chemical compounds in sugary drinks, such as 4-methylimidazole in drinks containing caramel colourings, could influence cancer incidence. Policy Implications Along with guidelines issued in 2015, WHO in 2017 issued guidance suggesting taxation of sugary drinks as a measure to help reduce overall sugar consumption and thus disease risks. Civil society groups also have been active in promoting food labelling and tax policies at the national level to reduce consumption of sugar and sugary drinks. Last January, at the WHO Executive Board meeting, a large consensus formed in support of a recent WHO review of evidence on the effectiveness of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means to reduce sugar consumption. The review was part of a report following up on United Nations General Assembly’s high level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The WHO drew on nine recent peer-reviewed studies of evidence of the impact of reducing sugar consumption through taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages at national and sub-national levels. The WHO review examined the outcomes of taxes on included fruit juices and sweetened or flavoured milk-based drinks. Only Italy and the United States pushed back against the findings, asking that the summary of evidence – on how taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks may help reduce unhealthy sugar consumption – be deleted from the progress report on tackling NCDs, and that public awareness-raising measures should rather be the focus of NCD prevention. Vital Strategies, a large NGO working with governments, notes that there are currently 45 countries which have implemented taxes or levies on sugary drinks. In an interview with Health Policy Watch, Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Vital Strategies for Policy, Advocacy and Communications explained different policy levers that can be used to curb sugary drinks consumption, and make healthier choices easier for consumers. Besides taxes, other policy levers include restricting the marketing and availability of unhealthy products to children, clear warning labels, communication campaigns to create awareness, and other pricing and policies to make healthy food choice more accessible. In a related development this month, the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe raised alarm about the high level of sugar found in certain brands of baby foods, incorrectly marketed as suitable for infants under the age of six months. Earlier this year, the BMJ published another study showing that tobacco industry giants built some of the leading sugary drink brands that have been marketed to children over the past 50 years, using marketing strategies developed by the tobacco industry. Image Credits: PIXNIO. Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Making Tough Vaccine Choices Amidst The Ebola Public Health Emergency 24/07/2019 Editorial team WHO’s declaration of the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) a Public Health Emergency of International Concern has been shadowed by growing questions over vaccine strategy in a crisis that has dragged on for over a year, and now threatens to spread across borders. Until now, a ring vaccination strategy focusing on health workers and direct contacts of Ebola victims has been used, but questions are growing over whether that can really snuff out the epidemic, and whether a second vaccine should also be deployed alongside the first-line Merck vaccine that has proven so highly effective. Two senior Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF/Doctors Without Borders) officials – Dr Isabelle Defourny, MSF Director of Operations, and Dr Anne-Marie Pegg, Clinical Lead for Epidemic Response and Vaccination, who is currently in DRC – unwrap these issues here. Nurse preparing the Merck Ebola vaccine in Bikoro, DRC, in 2018. Photo: MSF/Louise Annaud Health Policy Watch: What’s happening with the response to the Ebola epidemic in DRC? Dr Isabelle Defourny Dr Isabelle Defourny: The Ebola epidemic in east Democratic Republic of Congo is still not contained. More than 1,600 deaths from the Ebola virus have been reported since the outbreak was first declared on August 1, 2018, and, during the first seven months of the epidemic (August 2018 to March 2019), over 1,000 confirmed and probable cases were declared. Between March and June 2019, this number doubled, with 1,000 new cases in what’s a short period of time. The end of April was the peak, with more than 120 cases a week. There’s still a huge amount of new cases, between 75 and 100 every week. In a context like this, it’s extremely difficult to accurately track the epidemic’s chains of transmission. During the outbreak in 2014, all that could be done was to isolate patients and administer them largely ineffective drugs. With the vaccines and experimental drugs available to us in 2019, we’re now able to offer people the chance to protect themselves individually as well as access to promising treatments. According to the information provided after the epidemic broke out, most confirmed cases’ personal contacts were vaccinated and then monitored by the Ministry of Health’s teams. Very probably, this helped contain the epidemic for a while. It’s the first time vaccination has been implemented on such a large scale, which is an extremely positive development. HPW: Is this approach still possible today? ID: Let’s say it needs to be adapted and enhanced. Right now, “ring” vaccination is being used. This entails vaccinating anyone who’s been in contact with someone infected with Ebola as well as all of their contacts. The reasoning behind the method isn’t bad per se. But, implementing it is time-consuming and challenging (problems with identifying each and every person’s individual contacts) and it’s not adapted to the insecurity affecting North Kivu. In addition, the number of people vaccinated is too small to contain the spread of the epidemic. The teams also have issues transporting from Kinshasa vaccines that must be stored at a constant temperature of -60°C. HPW: A change of strategy is therefore necessary to contain the epidemic? ID: Absolutely. In fact, in May, the SAGE group’s experts recommended modifying the vaccination strategy in DRC so that more people can be vaccinated. Until now, the main obstacle to implementing extended vaccination has been the small stock of Merck vaccine — the only one shown to be effective in an epidemic. According to the WHO’s latest information, 600,000 Merck vaccine doses are now available.* If this is the case, there’s no longer any good reason for not immediately stepping up vaccination. People in DRC understand the usefulness of vaccination and, in fact, are asking to be immunised. However, with just around 50 contacts of one confirmed case vaccinated, it’s likely that only one-quarter to one-third of those at risk are protected. DRC’s stock of vaccines is extremely low, usually less than 1,000 doses. With its supply only sporadic, and issues with contact tracing, we’re not yet able to say this is an emergency response strategy. Whereas some anticipate a rapid end to the epidemic, we see no signs to back up such predictions. Quite the contrary as there’ve been alerts only recently in Uganda and near the border with south Sudan. Other vaccines exist. They should be tested in an epidemic zone to be prepared should this one spread and to be able to dispose of a wider range of vaccines in the event of future outbreaks. HPW: Regarding the Johnson & Johnson vaccine – I understand it hasn’t been field tested as rigorously as the Merck version, and it takes longer to confer immunity, but once it does so, it actually protects against multiple strains of Ebola and is available in 1.5 million doses. Can you just clarify then the opportunities as well as communications barriers to deploying this now that a PHEIC has been declared; and if used in a periphery zone, periphery in DRC, or border zones of neighboring countries? Dr Anne-Marie Pegg Dr Anne-Marie Pegg: Obviously, with over 170,000 doses now administered, there is more data available with regards to vaccine tolerance, as well as “real-world” conditions for vaccination activity. It is true that studies of a similar scale and intent have not been conducted with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but immunobridging data (which refers to an evaluation of human immunogenicity against a model that describes immunogenicity and survival in non-human primates) supports clinical benefit. Additionally safety studies in well over 2,000 participants support the safety of the vaccine. As mentioned, once the full 2-dose regimen is received, it protects not only against Ebola Zaire (the strain of virus responsible for this epidemic) but also other strains of Ebola virus, as well as Marburg (another hemorrhagic-fever-causing virus). The optimal strategy for the deployment of this vaccine remains under discussion and review. If the vaccine were to be deployed in the “periphery” of the epidemic, this could mean zones that are neighbouring those currently experiencing high transmission (particularly those where population movements are known to be frequent). It could also be used in a preventative manner for front line health workers and others who may be at high risk in neighbouring countries (where the Merck vaccine has been deployed) in order to maintain the Merck stock for reactive efforts. HPW: Regarding the Merck vaccine – what is hindering Merck production of more doses? Is it a financial barrier or something else? Particularly since this vaccine was developed with Canadian public funds and then merely purchased by Merck, it would seem there is a public obligation to speed things up. Finally in terms of counting remaining doses, of the original 300,000 vaccine doses made available some 170,000 were already administered. Then even if the dose was halved, it would seem that only about 430,000 doses (available now) remain at that?* AP: That would need to be clarified with Merck directly. Recently there has been a renewed scale-up of production, with additional doses said to available in the early part of 2020. However the supply chain as to how many will be available and with what delivery schedule (all at once? several thousand per month?) remains unclear. HPW: Anything else you care to note about the complexity of the community outreach mission on the ground. Please include any other messages that you believe are important. AP: MSF supports expanding access to vaccination, regardless of the vaccine deployed in these efforts. Effective vaccine is one real innovation that has come out of research done in previous outbreaks, and it has the potential to significantly alter the course of the epidemic. Vaccination demand is high – but the current strategy is not well adapted to the actual epidemic situation. This is not a criticism of the efforts deployed by surveillance teams – it is the reality of trying to track a huge volume of people in a complex, often insecure context with high population density and significant population movement. A strategy more adapted to this context – such as geographic targeting of hotspots – needs to be deployed quickly and efficiently to rapidly scale up the numbers of at-risk people who are able to be vaccinated. *According to a subsequent statement by Merck to Health Policy Watch, there are currently 245 1.0mL doses available now for shipment to the DRC, yielding 490,000 vaccines at the .5 mL strength currently being used by emergency teams, while more production is planned over the coming 6-18 months. Dr Isabelle Defourny is a specialist doctor in gynaecology-obstetric and has worked in emergency and medical projects of MSF for nearly a decade. Isabelle is Director of Operations for MSF in France, a role she held since 2015. Dr Anne-Marie Pegg has worked with MSF for 11 years in different contexts, including armed conflicts and epidemics, as emergency coordinator and medical coordinator. She is now part of the medical department of MSF in Paris. Image Credits: MSF/Louise Annaud. Global Innovation Index 2019 Released, Focus On The Future of Medical Innovation 24/07/2019 David Branigan The Global Innovation Index 2019 was released today with an overarching theme of “Creating Healthy Lives – The Future of Medical Innovation.” In addition to ranking countries according to their innovation performance on 80 indicators, this year’s Index also analyses the medical innovation landscape, and how emerging innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI), genomics, and mobile health applications, will impact delivery of healthcare in developed and developing countries. The Global Innovation Index 2019 found that overall, “Switzerland is the world’s most-innovative country followed by Sweden, the United States of America (U.S.), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (U.K.),” according to a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) press release. The Index also identifies India, South Africa, Chile, Israel and Singapore as regional leaders, and found China, Viet Nam and Rwanda topping their income groups. In the overview section, which introduces this year’s theme of “The Future of Medical Innovation,” the Index poses key questions the edition aims to address: “What is the potential impact of medical innovation on society and economic growth, and what obstacles must be overcome to reach that potential? How is the global landscape for research and development (R&D) and medical innovation changing? What health challenges do future innovations need to address and what types of breakthroughs are on the horizon? What are the main opportunities and obstacles to future medical innovation and what role might new policies play?” From its analysis, five key messages emerge: “High quality and affordable healthcare for all is important for sustainable economic growth and the overall quality of life of citizens. While significant progress has been achieved across many dimensions over the last decades, significant gaps in access to quality healthcare for large parts of the global population remain. Medical innovations are critical for closing the gaps in global healthcare provision. These innovations are happening across multiple dimensions, including core sciences, drug development, care delivery, and organizational and business models. In particular, medical technology related innovations are blossoming, with medical technology patents more numerous and growing at a faster path than pharmaceutical patents for the last decade. However, some challenges need to be overcome—notably, a decline in pharmaceutical R&D productivity and a prolonged process for deploying health innovations due to complex health ecosystems. The convergence of digital and biological technologies is disrupting healthcare and increasing the importance of data integration and management across the healthcare ecosystem. New digital health strategies need to focus on creating data infrastructure and processes for efficient and safe data collection, management, and sharing. Emerging markets have a unique opportunity to leverage medical innovations and invest in new healthcare delivery models to close the healthcare gap with more developed markets. Caution should be taken to ensure that new health innovations, and their related costs, do not exacerbate the health gap between the rich and poor. To maximize the potential for future health innovation, it is important to encourage collaboration across key actors, increase funding from public and private sources, establish and maintain a skilled health workforce, and carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of medical innovations.” “Innovation in the field of health is now being increasingly driven by data (Internet of Things) and artificial intelligence, in both diagnosis and prognosis. Unprecedented challenges need urgent attention in ethical, social and economic dimensions,” said Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD Executive Director for Global Indices and co-editor of the Global Innovation Index 2019, quoted in the press release. “As the power of medical decisions moves farther away from medical professions, regulators, governments, business and civil society need to establish limits to the ways in which the holders of big data and advanced algorithms can make or influence health decisions. In the absence of swift action, innovation in health and medicine may become a significant source of inequality,” he said. US Pick For UN Ambassador Disputes Sexual & Reproductive Rights, Draws Opposition 23/07/2019 David Branigan A United States congressional committee met today to vote on whether or not to recommend Andrew Bremberg for confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva. Bremberg is a controversial pick due to his extreme stance against abortion and his pledge to vote against any UN resolution that includes the right to abortion where legal, even in cases of sexual violence. In the lead-up to the vote by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, 38 US and international organisations sent an open letter to Senate leaders opposing the nomination of Bremberg and calling on all Senators to vote against his confirmation. “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva is a position of critical importance. The person occupying this role will be responsible for representing the U.S. in efforts to address some of the world’s biggest challenges, including health, human rights, and humanitarian crises and the resulting refugee and migration trends. Mr. Bremberg’s confirmation hearing, written responses, and previous record in government indicate he will not only obstruct, but actively work against the interests of individuals and communities worldwide who face the greatest barriers to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice,” stated the letter. Andrew Bremberg responding to questions at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Andrew Bremberg, currently serving as Assistant to the President and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, previously worked as Aide to Republican Senator and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Today’s closed hearing vote will also determine the recommendation of Kelly Craft as US Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. Craft, who’s family own a major coal company and is a major Republican donor, currently serves as US Ambassador to Canada. In an exchange between Bremberg and Senator Robert Menendez at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez cited the recent US threat to veto a UN Security Council resolution on gender-based violence in conflict over a reference to survivor’s access to sexual and reproductive health, asking: “Should victims of sexual violence be able to terminate the pregnancy where legal?” Bremberg replied: “Senator, I don’t believe that abortion is a moral solution to any problem.” Planned Parenthood Global responded in a Tweet saying: “The Trump admin continues to nominate anti-rights players to critical diplomatic positions, jeopardizing women’s and human rights protections. E.g. Andrew Bremberg, nom for US Ambassador to UN in Geneva, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape.” Bremberg, a top pick of US President Donald Trump, is also chief architect of Trump’s expanded version of the “global gag rule,” an international policy that prohibits any foreign NGO that receives US funding from providing abortion services, counseling or referrals. It requires these organisations to certify that they do not engage in abortion-related activities, and forces them “to choose between providing a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health care and receiving critical US funding,” according to a report by the International Women’s Health Coalition, one of the signatories to the open letter. Despite US attempts to restrict abortion services through the gag rule, evidence shows that the rule actually increased rates of abortion by 40 percent between 2001-2008 in areas where the policy was in effect, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Global Health. The study explains that this rate is associated with the rise of pregnancies in these areas, which are related to the policy’s impact on limiting family planning services including modern contraception. After being rescinded by President Barack Obama in 2009, the gag rule was reinstated by President Trump in 2017 and renamed as “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” Under this policy, the rule was expanded beyond just international family planning assistance to include all US funding for “global health assistance,” amounting to some US$ 9 billion. According to the expanded policy, global health assistance “includes funding for international health programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS; maternal and child health; nutrition; infectious diseases, including malaria and tuberculosis; global health security; and voluntary family planning and reproductive health.” A staunch advocate of the global gag rule, Bremberg, in his opening statement at the 20 June hearing, said: “If confirmed, I will advocate for reforms at UN organizations to protect US sovereignty and the broader world order we have fought so hard to create. We contribute more to the United Nations than any other country. It is our duty to ensure these funds are spent effectively, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with American values and interests.” If recommended by the Committee in today’s vote, Bremberg’s confirmation will still be subject to a vote by the full Senate. DR Congo Health Minister Resigns After President Takes Control Of Ebola Emergency 22/07/2019 Editorial team The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Health Minister, Oly Iluga, resigned Monday, following his removal Saturday as the head of the country’s Ebola response – after the country’s President Felix Tshisekedi placed management of the crisis under direct presidential supervision. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga speaking at the World Health Assembly in May 2019. “As a result of your decision to place the response to the Ebola outbreak under your direct supervision… I hereby submit my resignation as health minister,” Oly Ilunga wrote to President Felix Tshisekedi, in a letter in French, posted on Ilunga’s Twitter page. “As in any war, because that is what this is, the lines of authority must be clearly identified and defined. There cannot be several centres of decision-making for risk of creating confusion…” Iluga also voiced his concerns over the possible introduction of a second experimental vaccine into the battle against the deadly virus, calling it an “experiment.” Proponents of introducing the second vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, have pushed to deploy the 1.5 million available doses of the vaccine in peripheral zones where Ebola could potentially spread, reserving use of the field-tested Merck vaccine for front-line response. Only 300,000 doses of the Merck vaccine have been produced, and more than 164,000 people have already been vaccinated; although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. But Iluga said that it would be “illusory” to think that the new J&J vaccine, which requires two doses over the course of several weeks to provoke immunity, could play a decisive role in the course of the Ebola epidemic. Iluga’s resignation followed on the heels of WHO’s announcement last Wednesday (17 July) of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) during a week of heightened concern over possible spread of Ebola beyond the borders of DRC and into neighboring Uganda and Rwanda, as well as Burundi and South Sudan. While no fresh Ebola cases have yet been reported outside of DRC, Uganda went on high alert after an infected fish-monger visited a Ugandan market in a border community on 11 July, repeatedly vomiting in the public market, before returning to DRC where she died on 15 July. WHO officials said at last week’s press conference announcing the Ebola emergency that discussions were underway with the DRC government about deployment of the second vaccine. Previous Ministry of Health reservations had centred around concerns that introduction of a second vaccine might stimulate community misunderstandings, after a hard-fought campaign to win support for the use of the Merck vaccine in Ebola-affected communities. The Merck vaccine has been deployed in a “ring vaccine” strategy, immunizing health workers and community members suspected of having come into contact with other Ebola victims. However, judging from the 32 new Ebola cases that were reported by the DRC Ministry of Health over just the past two days, Friday and Saturday, that strategy has not yet managed to break the chain of continued infection, particularly in the North Kivu city of Beni, where 16 of those new cases were reported. Some 1737 people have died so far from Ebola since the outbreak began on 1 August, while 729 have recovered, according to the most recent DRC Health Ministry report. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga’s letter of resignation, posted today on his Twitter account @OlyIlunga. Image Credits: WHO/Cipriani. Sugar In Sodas, Fruit Juices May Increase Cancer Risks, Even With A Small Daily Intake 22/07/2019 Catherine Saez A new BMJ study by French researchers has reinforced the link between consumption of sugar-laced sodas & fruit juices and cancer incidence, in particular breast cancer. The study – the largest ever of its kind – is significant because while the link between sugar consumption and diabetes, obesity, and hypertension has been well documented, there have been fewer studies on sugary drinks as a cancer risk, the authors note. The BMJ study, “Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort,” involving 101,257 adults, including 79,724 women, found an increase in daily sugary drink consumption of 100 ml was associated with a sharp raise of overall cancer incidence as well as of breast cancer. According to Eloi Chazelas, co-author, “We observed that a 100mL per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks (which represents a small glass) was associated with approximately an 18% increased risk of overall cancer, and approximately 22% for breast cancer.” In specific sub-analyses, both pure fruit juices and other sugary drinks also were associated with an increased overall risk of cancer, he told Health Policy Watch. Participants came from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort of an even larger Franco-Belgium study examining the relationship between nutrition and health, in terms of not only cancer incidence, but also cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The study began in 2009 with participants added on a rolling basis until 2018; some participants were followed for as long as 9 years, with a median period of 5 years, with the average age of participants 42 years. The study examined consumption of 97 sugary drink items and 12 artificially sweetened beverage items. The sugary drinks included fruit juices comprising 100 percent fruit juice, without added sugar. Asked about the study’s findings, WHO Senior External Relations Officer Menno van Hilten told Health Policy Watch that WHO has not so far systematically reviewed potential associations of sugar consumption with cancer risks. WHO has not been looking at cancer as an outcome of free sugars consumption yet,” he said, adding that WHO also doesn’t comment on individual studies. Rather, WHO works on systematic reviews of evidence once evidence has accumulated. However, overall, WHO has been pressing for stronger policy measures to cut sugar consumption, including guidelines recommending strict limitations in sugar consumption, including in sugary drinks, due to its already well-documented links to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It has also supported policies to raise awareness on the health hazards brought by sugary drinks as well as policy measures that make healthier food choices cheaper and more accessible. Sugar in Drinks: Why Can It Increase Cancer Risk, Not Only Diabetes? Sugary drinks and the sugar they contain are already known risk factors for obesity, weight gain, insulin resistance, and increased proinflammatory markers, all of which are risk factors for cancer. But a direct link between sugary drinks and cancer has been less explored, according to the authors, with very few prospective studies conducted on the association between sugary drinks and individual cancer sites. Mechanisms underlying a link between sugary drinks and cancer might involve insulin resistance, according to the study, as foods with a comparatively higher glycaemic index, cause a rapid rise in blood sugar levels, or glycaemic load, and have been linked with breast cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and diabetes-related carcinomas. Additionally, sugary drink consumption tends to increase weight gain, further adding to their cancer risks: “Excess weight is a strong risk factor for mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophageal (adenocarcinoma), stomach (cardia), pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, colorectal, breast (postmenopause), ovarian, endometrial, prostate (advanced), and kidney cancers,” the study notes, building on previous results. But beyond weight gain, sugary drinks might promote gains in visceral adiposity independently of body weight, according to the study. Visceral adiposity, which refers to fat accumulation around the visceral organs, is responsible for much higher chronic disease risk than fat on the thighs, NutriNet-Santé study coordinator Dr Mathilde Touvier told Health Policy Watch. At this stage, it seems the authors cannot say whether different types of sugar and their different sources produce different effects in the body, and additional research is planned in the context of a new project of the NutriNet-Santé study. The study found that the median sugar content for sugary drinks was 10.7g/100ml, while most public health agencies set the recommended level at zero. Only water is recommended, even if unsweetened coffee or tea can also participate to the daily liquid intake. Can the same conclusions be drawn about sugary foods and cancer? According to Touvier, very few studies have been carried out so far and the topic will be investigated in NutriNet-Santé soon. 100 Percent Fruit Juices Also in Culprit Group; What About Whole Fruits? For those who thought that unsweetened fruit juices were healthy, the conclusion of the study is brutal. Making up 45 percent of all sugary drinks that are consumed overall, 100 percent fruit juices also were positively associated with an overall increased rate of cancer. If fruit juice is unhealthy, why does WHO recommend eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding starchy roots)? According to Touvier and Chazelas, “entire fruits contain more dietary fibres,” and this means that the body absorbs the sugar contained much more slowly, leading to a lower overall glycaemic load than for fruit juice. Whole fruits also help satiate the appetite more rapidly than juice, as they said “eating an orange is more efficient in filling the stomach than drinking the juice of one orange.” 100% fruit juices generally contain high levels of simple sugar, sometimes higher than regular soda, and their glycaemic indexes are higher than that of whole fruits, the study found. The recommendation on fruit juices in France is “less than one glass per day.” Artificial Sweeteners Off the Hook, Not a Blank Check While study results partly exonerate artificially sweetened drinks, Touvier told Health Policy Watch that those results should be taken cautiously, because the number of consumers of artificially sweetened beverages was limited, as well as the amounts consumed. Touvier, who also heads the Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN) in Paris, warned about drawing hasty conclusions about artificial sweeteners not having an impact on cancer incidence. “The message from this paper should definitively not be to switch from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened beverages.” The adverse cardiometabolic health effects of artificial sweeteners have been reported and some experimental studies suggested potential adverse effects, she explained, adding that further investigation is needed. For example, there is a lack of human data on cocktails of artificial sweeteners and other food additives, and a large-scale project is being launched by NutriNet-Santé on that topic. In particular, chemical compounds in sugary drinks, such as 4-methylimidazole in drinks containing caramel colourings, could influence cancer incidence. Policy Implications Along with guidelines issued in 2015, WHO in 2017 issued guidance suggesting taxation of sugary drinks as a measure to help reduce overall sugar consumption and thus disease risks. Civil society groups also have been active in promoting food labelling and tax policies at the national level to reduce consumption of sugar and sugary drinks. Last January, at the WHO Executive Board meeting, a large consensus formed in support of a recent WHO review of evidence on the effectiveness of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means to reduce sugar consumption. The review was part of a report following up on United Nations General Assembly’s high level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The WHO drew on nine recent peer-reviewed studies of evidence of the impact of reducing sugar consumption through taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages at national and sub-national levels. The WHO review examined the outcomes of taxes on included fruit juices and sweetened or flavoured milk-based drinks. Only Italy and the United States pushed back against the findings, asking that the summary of evidence – on how taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks may help reduce unhealthy sugar consumption – be deleted from the progress report on tackling NCDs, and that public awareness-raising measures should rather be the focus of NCD prevention. Vital Strategies, a large NGO working with governments, notes that there are currently 45 countries which have implemented taxes or levies on sugary drinks. In an interview with Health Policy Watch, Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Vital Strategies for Policy, Advocacy and Communications explained different policy levers that can be used to curb sugary drinks consumption, and make healthier choices easier for consumers. Besides taxes, other policy levers include restricting the marketing and availability of unhealthy products to children, clear warning labels, communication campaigns to create awareness, and other pricing and policies to make healthy food choice more accessible. In a related development this month, the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe raised alarm about the high level of sugar found in certain brands of baby foods, incorrectly marketed as suitable for infants under the age of six months. Earlier this year, the BMJ published another study showing that tobacco industry giants built some of the leading sugary drink brands that have been marketed to children over the past 50 years, using marketing strategies developed by the tobacco industry. Image Credits: PIXNIO. Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Global Innovation Index 2019 Released, Focus On The Future of Medical Innovation 24/07/2019 David Branigan The Global Innovation Index 2019 was released today with an overarching theme of “Creating Healthy Lives – The Future of Medical Innovation.” In addition to ranking countries according to their innovation performance on 80 indicators, this year’s Index also analyses the medical innovation landscape, and how emerging innovations, such as artificial intelligence (AI), genomics, and mobile health applications, will impact delivery of healthcare in developed and developing countries. The Global Innovation Index 2019 found that overall, “Switzerland is the world’s most-innovative country followed by Sweden, the United States of America (U.S.), the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (U.K.),” according to a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) press release. The Index also identifies India, South Africa, Chile, Israel and Singapore as regional leaders, and found China, Viet Nam and Rwanda topping their income groups. In the overview section, which introduces this year’s theme of “The Future of Medical Innovation,” the Index poses key questions the edition aims to address: “What is the potential impact of medical innovation on society and economic growth, and what obstacles must be overcome to reach that potential? How is the global landscape for research and development (R&D) and medical innovation changing? What health challenges do future innovations need to address and what types of breakthroughs are on the horizon? What are the main opportunities and obstacles to future medical innovation and what role might new policies play?” From its analysis, five key messages emerge: “High quality and affordable healthcare for all is important for sustainable economic growth and the overall quality of life of citizens. While significant progress has been achieved across many dimensions over the last decades, significant gaps in access to quality healthcare for large parts of the global population remain. Medical innovations are critical for closing the gaps in global healthcare provision. These innovations are happening across multiple dimensions, including core sciences, drug development, care delivery, and organizational and business models. In particular, medical technology related innovations are blossoming, with medical technology patents more numerous and growing at a faster path than pharmaceutical patents for the last decade. However, some challenges need to be overcome—notably, a decline in pharmaceutical R&D productivity and a prolonged process for deploying health innovations due to complex health ecosystems. The convergence of digital and biological technologies is disrupting healthcare and increasing the importance of data integration and management across the healthcare ecosystem. New digital health strategies need to focus on creating data infrastructure and processes for efficient and safe data collection, management, and sharing. Emerging markets have a unique opportunity to leverage medical innovations and invest in new healthcare delivery models to close the healthcare gap with more developed markets. Caution should be taken to ensure that new health innovations, and their related costs, do not exacerbate the health gap between the rich and poor. To maximize the potential for future health innovation, it is important to encourage collaboration across key actors, increase funding from public and private sources, establish and maintain a skilled health workforce, and carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of medical innovations.” “Innovation in the field of health is now being increasingly driven by data (Internet of Things) and artificial intelligence, in both diagnosis and prognosis. Unprecedented challenges need urgent attention in ethical, social and economic dimensions,” said Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD Executive Director for Global Indices and co-editor of the Global Innovation Index 2019, quoted in the press release. “As the power of medical decisions moves farther away from medical professions, regulators, governments, business and civil society need to establish limits to the ways in which the holders of big data and advanced algorithms can make or influence health decisions. In the absence of swift action, innovation in health and medicine may become a significant source of inequality,” he said. US Pick For UN Ambassador Disputes Sexual & Reproductive Rights, Draws Opposition 23/07/2019 David Branigan A United States congressional committee met today to vote on whether or not to recommend Andrew Bremberg for confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva. Bremberg is a controversial pick due to his extreme stance against abortion and his pledge to vote against any UN resolution that includes the right to abortion where legal, even in cases of sexual violence. In the lead-up to the vote by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, 38 US and international organisations sent an open letter to Senate leaders opposing the nomination of Bremberg and calling on all Senators to vote against his confirmation. “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva is a position of critical importance. The person occupying this role will be responsible for representing the U.S. in efforts to address some of the world’s biggest challenges, including health, human rights, and humanitarian crises and the resulting refugee and migration trends. Mr. Bremberg’s confirmation hearing, written responses, and previous record in government indicate he will not only obstruct, but actively work against the interests of individuals and communities worldwide who face the greatest barriers to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice,” stated the letter. Andrew Bremberg responding to questions at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Andrew Bremberg, currently serving as Assistant to the President and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, previously worked as Aide to Republican Senator and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Today’s closed hearing vote will also determine the recommendation of Kelly Craft as US Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. Craft, who’s family own a major coal company and is a major Republican donor, currently serves as US Ambassador to Canada. In an exchange between Bremberg and Senator Robert Menendez at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez cited the recent US threat to veto a UN Security Council resolution on gender-based violence in conflict over a reference to survivor’s access to sexual and reproductive health, asking: “Should victims of sexual violence be able to terminate the pregnancy where legal?” Bremberg replied: “Senator, I don’t believe that abortion is a moral solution to any problem.” Planned Parenthood Global responded in a Tweet saying: “The Trump admin continues to nominate anti-rights players to critical diplomatic positions, jeopardizing women’s and human rights protections. E.g. Andrew Bremberg, nom for US Ambassador to UN in Geneva, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape.” Bremberg, a top pick of US President Donald Trump, is also chief architect of Trump’s expanded version of the “global gag rule,” an international policy that prohibits any foreign NGO that receives US funding from providing abortion services, counseling or referrals. It requires these organisations to certify that they do not engage in abortion-related activities, and forces them “to choose between providing a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health care and receiving critical US funding,” according to a report by the International Women’s Health Coalition, one of the signatories to the open letter. Despite US attempts to restrict abortion services through the gag rule, evidence shows that the rule actually increased rates of abortion by 40 percent between 2001-2008 in areas where the policy was in effect, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Global Health. The study explains that this rate is associated with the rise of pregnancies in these areas, which are related to the policy’s impact on limiting family planning services including modern contraception. After being rescinded by President Barack Obama in 2009, the gag rule was reinstated by President Trump in 2017 and renamed as “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” Under this policy, the rule was expanded beyond just international family planning assistance to include all US funding for “global health assistance,” amounting to some US$ 9 billion. According to the expanded policy, global health assistance “includes funding for international health programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS; maternal and child health; nutrition; infectious diseases, including malaria and tuberculosis; global health security; and voluntary family planning and reproductive health.” A staunch advocate of the global gag rule, Bremberg, in his opening statement at the 20 June hearing, said: “If confirmed, I will advocate for reforms at UN organizations to protect US sovereignty and the broader world order we have fought so hard to create. We contribute more to the United Nations than any other country. It is our duty to ensure these funds are spent effectively, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with American values and interests.” If recommended by the Committee in today’s vote, Bremberg’s confirmation will still be subject to a vote by the full Senate. DR Congo Health Minister Resigns After President Takes Control Of Ebola Emergency 22/07/2019 Editorial team The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Health Minister, Oly Iluga, resigned Monday, following his removal Saturday as the head of the country’s Ebola response – after the country’s President Felix Tshisekedi placed management of the crisis under direct presidential supervision. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga speaking at the World Health Assembly in May 2019. “As a result of your decision to place the response to the Ebola outbreak under your direct supervision… I hereby submit my resignation as health minister,” Oly Ilunga wrote to President Felix Tshisekedi, in a letter in French, posted on Ilunga’s Twitter page. “As in any war, because that is what this is, the lines of authority must be clearly identified and defined. There cannot be several centres of decision-making for risk of creating confusion…” Iluga also voiced his concerns over the possible introduction of a second experimental vaccine into the battle against the deadly virus, calling it an “experiment.” Proponents of introducing the second vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, have pushed to deploy the 1.5 million available doses of the vaccine in peripheral zones where Ebola could potentially spread, reserving use of the field-tested Merck vaccine for front-line response. Only 300,000 doses of the Merck vaccine have been produced, and more than 164,000 people have already been vaccinated; although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. But Iluga said that it would be “illusory” to think that the new J&J vaccine, which requires two doses over the course of several weeks to provoke immunity, could play a decisive role in the course of the Ebola epidemic. Iluga’s resignation followed on the heels of WHO’s announcement last Wednesday (17 July) of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) during a week of heightened concern over possible spread of Ebola beyond the borders of DRC and into neighboring Uganda and Rwanda, as well as Burundi and South Sudan. While no fresh Ebola cases have yet been reported outside of DRC, Uganda went on high alert after an infected fish-monger visited a Ugandan market in a border community on 11 July, repeatedly vomiting in the public market, before returning to DRC where she died on 15 July. WHO officials said at last week’s press conference announcing the Ebola emergency that discussions were underway with the DRC government about deployment of the second vaccine. Previous Ministry of Health reservations had centred around concerns that introduction of a second vaccine might stimulate community misunderstandings, after a hard-fought campaign to win support for the use of the Merck vaccine in Ebola-affected communities. The Merck vaccine has been deployed in a “ring vaccine” strategy, immunizing health workers and community members suspected of having come into contact with other Ebola victims. However, judging from the 32 new Ebola cases that were reported by the DRC Ministry of Health over just the past two days, Friday and Saturday, that strategy has not yet managed to break the chain of continued infection, particularly in the North Kivu city of Beni, where 16 of those new cases were reported. Some 1737 people have died so far from Ebola since the outbreak began on 1 August, while 729 have recovered, according to the most recent DRC Health Ministry report. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga’s letter of resignation, posted today on his Twitter account @OlyIlunga. Image Credits: WHO/Cipriani. Sugar In Sodas, Fruit Juices May Increase Cancer Risks, Even With A Small Daily Intake 22/07/2019 Catherine Saez A new BMJ study by French researchers has reinforced the link between consumption of sugar-laced sodas & fruit juices and cancer incidence, in particular breast cancer. The study – the largest ever of its kind – is significant because while the link between sugar consumption and diabetes, obesity, and hypertension has been well documented, there have been fewer studies on sugary drinks as a cancer risk, the authors note. The BMJ study, “Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort,” involving 101,257 adults, including 79,724 women, found an increase in daily sugary drink consumption of 100 ml was associated with a sharp raise of overall cancer incidence as well as of breast cancer. According to Eloi Chazelas, co-author, “We observed that a 100mL per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks (which represents a small glass) was associated with approximately an 18% increased risk of overall cancer, and approximately 22% for breast cancer.” In specific sub-analyses, both pure fruit juices and other sugary drinks also were associated with an increased overall risk of cancer, he told Health Policy Watch. Participants came from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort of an even larger Franco-Belgium study examining the relationship between nutrition and health, in terms of not only cancer incidence, but also cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The study began in 2009 with participants added on a rolling basis until 2018; some participants were followed for as long as 9 years, with a median period of 5 years, with the average age of participants 42 years. The study examined consumption of 97 sugary drink items and 12 artificially sweetened beverage items. The sugary drinks included fruit juices comprising 100 percent fruit juice, without added sugar. Asked about the study’s findings, WHO Senior External Relations Officer Menno van Hilten told Health Policy Watch that WHO has not so far systematically reviewed potential associations of sugar consumption with cancer risks. WHO has not been looking at cancer as an outcome of free sugars consumption yet,” he said, adding that WHO also doesn’t comment on individual studies. Rather, WHO works on systematic reviews of evidence once evidence has accumulated. However, overall, WHO has been pressing for stronger policy measures to cut sugar consumption, including guidelines recommending strict limitations in sugar consumption, including in sugary drinks, due to its already well-documented links to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It has also supported policies to raise awareness on the health hazards brought by sugary drinks as well as policy measures that make healthier food choices cheaper and more accessible. Sugar in Drinks: Why Can It Increase Cancer Risk, Not Only Diabetes? Sugary drinks and the sugar they contain are already known risk factors for obesity, weight gain, insulin resistance, and increased proinflammatory markers, all of which are risk factors for cancer. But a direct link between sugary drinks and cancer has been less explored, according to the authors, with very few prospective studies conducted on the association between sugary drinks and individual cancer sites. Mechanisms underlying a link between sugary drinks and cancer might involve insulin resistance, according to the study, as foods with a comparatively higher glycaemic index, cause a rapid rise in blood sugar levels, or glycaemic load, and have been linked with breast cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and diabetes-related carcinomas. Additionally, sugary drink consumption tends to increase weight gain, further adding to their cancer risks: “Excess weight is a strong risk factor for mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophageal (adenocarcinoma), stomach (cardia), pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, colorectal, breast (postmenopause), ovarian, endometrial, prostate (advanced), and kidney cancers,” the study notes, building on previous results. But beyond weight gain, sugary drinks might promote gains in visceral adiposity independently of body weight, according to the study. Visceral adiposity, which refers to fat accumulation around the visceral organs, is responsible for much higher chronic disease risk than fat on the thighs, NutriNet-Santé study coordinator Dr Mathilde Touvier told Health Policy Watch. At this stage, it seems the authors cannot say whether different types of sugar and their different sources produce different effects in the body, and additional research is planned in the context of a new project of the NutriNet-Santé study. The study found that the median sugar content for sugary drinks was 10.7g/100ml, while most public health agencies set the recommended level at zero. Only water is recommended, even if unsweetened coffee or tea can also participate to the daily liquid intake. Can the same conclusions be drawn about sugary foods and cancer? According to Touvier, very few studies have been carried out so far and the topic will be investigated in NutriNet-Santé soon. 100 Percent Fruit Juices Also in Culprit Group; What About Whole Fruits? For those who thought that unsweetened fruit juices were healthy, the conclusion of the study is brutal. Making up 45 percent of all sugary drinks that are consumed overall, 100 percent fruit juices also were positively associated with an overall increased rate of cancer. If fruit juice is unhealthy, why does WHO recommend eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding starchy roots)? According to Touvier and Chazelas, “entire fruits contain more dietary fibres,” and this means that the body absorbs the sugar contained much more slowly, leading to a lower overall glycaemic load than for fruit juice. Whole fruits also help satiate the appetite more rapidly than juice, as they said “eating an orange is more efficient in filling the stomach than drinking the juice of one orange.” 100% fruit juices generally contain high levels of simple sugar, sometimes higher than regular soda, and their glycaemic indexes are higher than that of whole fruits, the study found. The recommendation on fruit juices in France is “less than one glass per day.” Artificial Sweeteners Off the Hook, Not a Blank Check While study results partly exonerate artificially sweetened drinks, Touvier told Health Policy Watch that those results should be taken cautiously, because the number of consumers of artificially sweetened beverages was limited, as well as the amounts consumed. Touvier, who also heads the Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN) in Paris, warned about drawing hasty conclusions about artificial sweeteners not having an impact on cancer incidence. “The message from this paper should definitively not be to switch from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened beverages.” The adverse cardiometabolic health effects of artificial sweeteners have been reported and some experimental studies suggested potential adverse effects, she explained, adding that further investigation is needed. For example, there is a lack of human data on cocktails of artificial sweeteners and other food additives, and a large-scale project is being launched by NutriNet-Santé on that topic. In particular, chemical compounds in sugary drinks, such as 4-methylimidazole in drinks containing caramel colourings, could influence cancer incidence. Policy Implications Along with guidelines issued in 2015, WHO in 2017 issued guidance suggesting taxation of sugary drinks as a measure to help reduce overall sugar consumption and thus disease risks. Civil society groups also have been active in promoting food labelling and tax policies at the national level to reduce consumption of sugar and sugary drinks. Last January, at the WHO Executive Board meeting, a large consensus formed in support of a recent WHO review of evidence on the effectiveness of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means to reduce sugar consumption. The review was part of a report following up on United Nations General Assembly’s high level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The WHO drew on nine recent peer-reviewed studies of evidence of the impact of reducing sugar consumption through taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages at national and sub-national levels. The WHO review examined the outcomes of taxes on included fruit juices and sweetened or flavoured milk-based drinks. Only Italy and the United States pushed back against the findings, asking that the summary of evidence – on how taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks may help reduce unhealthy sugar consumption – be deleted from the progress report on tackling NCDs, and that public awareness-raising measures should rather be the focus of NCD prevention. Vital Strategies, a large NGO working with governments, notes that there are currently 45 countries which have implemented taxes or levies on sugary drinks. In an interview with Health Policy Watch, Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Vital Strategies for Policy, Advocacy and Communications explained different policy levers that can be used to curb sugary drinks consumption, and make healthier choices easier for consumers. Besides taxes, other policy levers include restricting the marketing and availability of unhealthy products to children, clear warning labels, communication campaigns to create awareness, and other pricing and policies to make healthy food choice more accessible. In a related development this month, the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe raised alarm about the high level of sugar found in certain brands of baby foods, incorrectly marketed as suitable for infants under the age of six months. Earlier this year, the BMJ published another study showing that tobacco industry giants built some of the leading sugary drink brands that have been marketed to children over the past 50 years, using marketing strategies developed by the tobacco industry. Image Credits: PIXNIO. Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
US Pick For UN Ambassador Disputes Sexual & Reproductive Rights, Draws Opposition 23/07/2019 David Branigan A United States congressional committee met today to vote on whether or not to recommend Andrew Bremberg for confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva. Bremberg is a controversial pick due to his extreme stance against abortion and his pledge to vote against any UN resolution that includes the right to abortion where legal, even in cases of sexual violence. In the lead-up to the vote by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, 38 US and international organisations sent an open letter to Senate leaders opposing the nomination of Bremberg and calling on all Senators to vote against his confirmation. “The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva is a position of critical importance. The person occupying this role will be responsible for representing the U.S. in efforts to address some of the world’s biggest challenges, including health, human rights, and humanitarian crises and the resulting refugee and migration trends. Mr. Bremberg’s confirmation hearing, written responses, and previous record in government indicate he will not only obstruct, but actively work against the interests of individuals and communities worldwide who face the greatest barriers to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice,” stated the letter. Andrew Bremberg responding to questions at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Andrew Bremberg, currently serving as Assistant to the President and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, previously worked as Aide to Republican Senator and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Today’s closed hearing vote will also determine the recommendation of Kelly Craft as US Ambassador to the United Nations in New York. Craft, who’s family own a major coal company and is a major Republican donor, currently serves as US Ambassador to Canada. In an exchange between Bremberg and Senator Robert Menendez at the 20 June hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez cited the recent US threat to veto a UN Security Council resolution on gender-based violence in conflict over a reference to survivor’s access to sexual and reproductive health, asking: “Should victims of sexual violence be able to terminate the pregnancy where legal?” Bremberg replied: “Senator, I don’t believe that abortion is a moral solution to any problem.” Planned Parenthood Global responded in a Tweet saying: “The Trump admin continues to nominate anti-rights players to critical diplomatic positions, jeopardizing women’s and human rights protections. E.g. Andrew Bremberg, nom for US Ambassador to UN in Geneva, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape.” Bremberg, a top pick of US President Donald Trump, is also chief architect of Trump’s expanded version of the “global gag rule,” an international policy that prohibits any foreign NGO that receives US funding from providing abortion services, counseling or referrals. It requires these organisations to certify that they do not engage in abortion-related activities, and forces them “to choose between providing a comprehensive spectrum of reproductive health care and receiving critical US funding,” according to a report by the International Women’s Health Coalition, one of the signatories to the open letter. Despite US attempts to restrict abortion services through the gag rule, evidence shows that the rule actually increased rates of abortion by 40 percent between 2001-2008 in areas where the policy was in effect, according to a recent study published in The Lancet Global Health. The study explains that this rate is associated with the rise of pregnancies in these areas, which are related to the policy’s impact on limiting family planning services including modern contraception. After being rescinded by President Barack Obama in 2009, the gag rule was reinstated by President Trump in 2017 and renamed as “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance.” Under this policy, the rule was expanded beyond just international family planning assistance to include all US funding for “global health assistance,” amounting to some US$ 9 billion. According to the expanded policy, global health assistance “includes funding for international health programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS; maternal and child health; nutrition; infectious diseases, including malaria and tuberculosis; global health security; and voluntary family planning and reproductive health.” A staunch advocate of the global gag rule, Bremberg, in his opening statement at the 20 June hearing, said: “If confirmed, I will advocate for reforms at UN organizations to protect US sovereignty and the broader world order we have fought so hard to create. We contribute more to the United Nations than any other country. It is our duty to ensure these funds are spent effectively, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with American values and interests.” If recommended by the Committee in today’s vote, Bremberg’s confirmation will still be subject to a vote by the full Senate. DR Congo Health Minister Resigns After President Takes Control Of Ebola Emergency 22/07/2019 Editorial team The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Health Minister, Oly Iluga, resigned Monday, following his removal Saturday as the head of the country’s Ebola response – after the country’s President Felix Tshisekedi placed management of the crisis under direct presidential supervision. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga speaking at the World Health Assembly in May 2019. “As a result of your decision to place the response to the Ebola outbreak under your direct supervision… I hereby submit my resignation as health minister,” Oly Ilunga wrote to President Felix Tshisekedi, in a letter in French, posted on Ilunga’s Twitter page. “As in any war, because that is what this is, the lines of authority must be clearly identified and defined. There cannot be several centres of decision-making for risk of creating confusion…” Iluga also voiced his concerns over the possible introduction of a second experimental vaccine into the battle against the deadly virus, calling it an “experiment.” Proponents of introducing the second vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, have pushed to deploy the 1.5 million available doses of the vaccine in peripheral zones where Ebola could potentially spread, reserving use of the field-tested Merck vaccine for front-line response. Only 300,000 doses of the Merck vaccine have been produced, and more than 164,000 people have already been vaccinated; although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. But Iluga said that it would be “illusory” to think that the new J&J vaccine, which requires two doses over the course of several weeks to provoke immunity, could play a decisive role in the course of the Ebola epidemic. Iluga’s resignation followed on the heels of WHO’s announcement last Wednesday (17 July) of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) during a week of heightened concern over possible spread of Ebola beyond the borders of DRC and into neighboring Uganda and Rwanda, as well as Burundi and South Sudan. While no fresh Ebola cases have yet been reported outside of DRC, Uganda went on high alert after an infected fish-monger visited a Ugandan market in a border community on 11 July, repeatedly vomiting in the public market, before returning to DRC where she died on 15 July. WHO officials said at last week’s press conference announcing the Ebola emergency that discussions were underway with the DRC government about deployment of the second vaccine. Previous Ministry of Health reservations had centred around concerns that introduction of a second vaccine might stimulate community misunderstandings, after a hard-fought campaign to win support for the use of the Merck vaccine in Ebola-affected communities. The Merck vaccine has been deployed in a “ring vaccine” strategy, immunizing health workers and community members suspected of having come into contact with other Ebola victims. However, judging from the 32 new Ebola cases that were reported by the DRC Ministry of Health over just the past two days, Friday and Saturday, that strategy has not yet managed to break the chain of continued infection, particularly in the North Kivu city of Beni, where 16 of those new cases were reported. Some 1737 people have died so far from Ebola since the outbreak began on 1 August, while 729 have recovered, according to the most recent DRC Health Ministry report. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga’s letter of resignation, posted today on his Twitter account @OlyIlunga. Image Credits: WHO/Cipriani. Sugar In Sodas, Fruit Juices May Increase Cancer Risks, Even With A Small Daily Intake 22/07/2019 Catherine Saez A new BMJ study by French researchers has reinforced the link between consumption of sugar-laced sodas & fruit juices and cancer incidence, in particular breast cancer. The study – the largest ever of its kind – is significant because while the link between sugar consumption and diabetes, obesity, and hypertension has been well documented, there have been fewer studies on sugary drinks as a cancer risk, the authors note. The BMJ study, “Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort,” involving 101,257 adults, including 79,724 women, found an increase in daily sugary drink consumption of 100 ml was associated with a sharp raise of overall cancer incidence as well as of breast cancer. According to Eloi Chazelas, co-author, “We observed that a 100mL per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks (which represents a small glass) was associated with approximately an 18% increased risk of overall cancer, and approximately 22% for breast cancer.” In specific sub-analyses, both pure fruit juices and other sugary drinks also were associated with an increased overall risk of cancer, he told Health Policy Watch. Participants came from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort of an even larger Franco-Belgium study examining the relationship between nutrition and health, in terms of not only cancer incidence, but also cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The study began in 2009 with participants added on a rolling basis until 2018; some participants were followed for as long as 9 years, with a median period of 5 years, with the average age of participants 42 years. The study examined consumption of 97 sugary drink items and 12 artificially sweetened beverage items. The sugary drinks included fruit juices comprising 100 percent fruit juice, without added sugar. Asked about the study’s findings, WHO Senior External Relations Officer Menno van Hilten told Health Policy Watch that WHO has not so far systematically reviewed potential associations of sugar consumption with cancer risks. WHO has not been looking at cancer as an outcome of free sugars consumption yet,” he said, adding that WHO also doesn’t comment on individual studies. Rather, WHO works on systematic reviews of evidence once evidence has accumulated. However, overall, WHO has been pressing for stronger policy measures to cut sugar consumption, including guidelines recommending strict limitations in sugar consumption, including in sugary drinks, due to its already well-documented links to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It has also supported policies to raise awareness on the health hazards brought by sugary drinks as well as policy measures that make healthier food choices cheaper and more accessible. Sugar in Drinks: Why Can It Increase Cancer Risk, Not Only Diabetes? Sugary drinks and the sugar they contain are already known risk factors for obesity, weight gain, insulin resistance, and increased proinflammatory markers, all of which are risk factors for cancer. But a direct link between sugary drinks and cancer has been less explored, according to the authors, with very few prospective studies conducted on the association between sugary drinks and individual cancer sites. Mechanisms underlying a link between sugary drinks and cancer might involve insulin resistance, according to the study, as foods with a comparatively higher glycaemic index, cause a rapid rise in blood sugar levels, or glycaemic load, and have been linked with breast cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and diabetes-related carcinomas. Additionally, sugary drink consumption tends to increase weight gain, further adding to their cancer risks: “Excess weight is a strong risk factor for mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophageal (adenocarcinoma), stomach (cardia), pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, colorectal, breast (postmenopause), ovarian, endometrial, prostate (advanced), and kidney cancers,” the study notes, building on previous results. But beyond weight gain, sugary drinks might promote gains in visceral adiposity independently of body weight, according to the study. Visceral adiposity, which refers to fat accumulation around the visceral organs, is responsible for much higher chronic disease risk than fat on the thighs, NutriNet-Santé study coordinator Dr Mathilde Touvier told Health Policy Watch. At this stage, it seems the authors cannot say whether different types of sugar and their different sources produce different effects in the body, and additional research is planned in the context of a new project of the NutriNet-Santé study. The study found that the median sugar content for sugary drinks was 10.7g/100ml, while most public health agencies set the recommended level at zero. Only water is recommended, even if unsweetened coffee or tea can also participate to the daily liquid intake. Can the same conclusions be drawn about sugary foods and cancer? According to Touvier, very few studies have been carried out so far and the topic will be investigated in NutriNet-Santé soon. 100 Percent Fruit Juices Also in Culprit Group; What About Whole Fruits? For those who thought that unsweetened fruit juices were healthy, the conclusion of the study is brutal. Making up 45 percent of all sugary drinks that are consumed overall, 100 percent fruit juices also were positively associated with an overall increased rate of cancer. If fruit juice is unhealthy, why does WHO recommend eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding starchy roots)? According to Touvier and Chazelas, “entire fruits contain more dietary fibres,” and this means that the body absorbs the sugar contained much more slowly, leading to a lower overall glycaemic load than for fruit juice. Whole fruits also help satiate the appetite more rapidly than juice, as they said “eating an orange is more efficient in filling the stomach than drinking the juice of one orange.” 100% fruit juices generally contain high levels of simple sugar, sometimes higher than regular soda, and their glycaemic indexes are higher than that of whole fruits, the study found. The recommendation on fruit juices in France is “less than one glass per day.” Artificial Sweeteners Off the Hook, Not a Blank Check While study results partly exonerate artificially sweetened drinks, Touvier told Health Policy Watch that those results should be taken cautiously, because the number of consumers of artificially sweetened beverages was limited, as well as the amounts consumed. Touvier, who also heads the Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN) in Paris, warned about drawing hasty conclusions about artificial sweeteners not having an impact on cancer incidence. “The message from this paper should definitively not be to switch from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened beverages.” The adverse cardiometabolic health effects of artificial sweeteners have been reported and some experimental studies suggested potential adverse effects, she explained, adding that further investigation is needed. For example, there is a lack of human data on cocktails of artificial sweeteners and other food additives, and a large-scale project is being launched by NutriNet-Santé on that topic. In particular, chemical compounds in sugary drinks, such as 4-methylimidazole in drinks containing caramel colourings, could influence cancer incidence. Policy Implications Along with guidelines issued in 2015, WHO in 2017 issued guidance suggesting taxation of sugary drinks as a measure to help reduce overall sugar consumption and thus disease risks. Civil society groups also have been active in promoting food labelling and tax policies at the national level to reduce consumption of sugar and sugary drinks. Last January, at the WHO Executive Board meeting, a large consensus formed in support of a recent WHO review of evidence on the effectiveness of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means to reduce sugar consumption. The review was part of a report following up on United Nations General Assembly’s high level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The WHO drew on nine recent peer-reviewed studies of evidence of the impact of reducing sugar consumption through taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages at national and sub-national levels. The WHO review examined the outcomes of taxes on included fruit juices and sweetened or flavoured milk-based drinks. Only Italy and the United States pushed back against the findings, asking that the summary of evidence – on how taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks may help reduce unhealthy sugar consumption – be deleted from the progress report on tackling NCDs, and that public awareness-raising measures should rather be the focus of NCD prevention. Vital Strategies, a large NGO working with governments, notes that there are currently 45 countries which have implemented taxes or levies on sugary drinks. In an interview with Health Policy Watch, Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Vital Strategies for Policy, Advocacy and Communications explained different policy levers that can be used to curb sugary drinks consumption, and make healthier choices easier for consumers. Besides taxes, other policy levers include restricting the marketing and availability of unhealthy products to children, clear warning labels, communication campaigns to create awareness, and other pricing and policies to make healthy food choice more accessible. In a related development this month, the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe raised alarm about the high level of sugar found in certain brands of baby foods, incorrectly marketed as suitable for infants under the age of six months. Earlier this year, the BMJ published another study showing that tobacco industry giants built some of the leading sugary drink brands that have been marketed to children over the past 50 years, using marketing strategies developed by the tobacco industry. Image Credits: PIXNIO. Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
DR Congo Health Minister Resigns After President Takes Control Of Ebola Emergency 22/07/2019 Editorial team The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Health Minister, Oly Iluga, resigned Monday, following his removal Saturday as the head of the country’s Ebola response – after the country’s President Felix Tshisekedi placed management of the crisis under direct presidential supervision. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga speaking at the World Health Assembly in May 2019. “As a result of your decision to place the response to the Ebola outbreak under your direct supervision… I hereby submit my resignation as health minister,” Oly Ilunga wrote to President Felix Tshisekedi, in a letter in French, posted on Ilunga’s Twitter page. “As in any war, because that is what this is, the lines of authority must be clearly identified and defined. There cannot be several centres of decision-making for risk of creating confusion…” Iluga also voiced his concerns over the possible introduction of a second experimental vaccine into the battle against the deadly virus, calling it an “experiment.” Proponents of introducing the second vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson, have pushed to deploy the 1.5 million available doses of the vaccine in peripheral zones where Ebola could potentially spread, reserving use of the field-tested Merck vaccine for front-line response. Only 300,000 doses of the Merck vaccine have been produced, and more than 164,000 people have already been vaccinated; although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. But Iluga said that it would be “illusory” to think that the new J&J vaccine, which requires two doses over the course of several weeks to provoke immunity, could play a decisive role in the course of the Ebola epidemic. Iluga’s resignation followed on the heels of WHO’s announcement last Wednesday (17 July) of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) during a week of heightened concern over possible spread of Ebola beyond the borders of DRC and into neighboring Uganda and Rwanda, as well as Burundi and South Sudan. While no fresh Ebola cases have yet been reported outside of DRC, Uganda went on high alert after an infected fish-monger visited a Ugandan market in a border community on 11 July, repeatedly vomiting in the public market, before returning to DRC where she died on 15 July. WHO officials said at last week’s press conference announcing the Ebola emergency that discussions were underway with the DRC government about deployment of the second vaccine. Previous Ministry of Health reservations had centred around concerns that introduction of a second vaccine might stimulate community misunderstandings, after a hard-fought campaign to win support for the use of the Merck vaccine in Ebola-affected communities. The Merck vaccine has been deployed in a “ring vaccine” strategy, immunizing health workers and community members suspected of having come into contact with other Ebola victims. However, judging from the 32 new Ebola cases that were reported by the DRC Ministry of Health over just the past two days, Friday and Saturday, that strategy has not yet managed to break the chain of continued infection, particularly in the North Kivu city of Beni, where 16 of those new cases were reported. Some 1737 people have died so far from Ebola since the outbreak began on 1 August, while 729 have recovered, according to the most recent DRC Health Ministry report. DRC Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga’s letter of resignation, posted today on his Twitter account @OlyIlunga. Image Credits: WHO/Cipriani. Sugar In Sodas, Fruit Juices May Increase Cancer Risks, Even With A Small Daily Intake 22/07/2019 Catherine Saez A new BMJ study by French researchers has reinforced the link between consumption of sugar-laced sodas & fruit juices and cancer incidence, in particular breast cancer. The study – the largest ever of its kind – is significant because while the link between sugar consumption and diabetes, obesity, and hypertension has been well documented, there have been fewer studies on sugary drinks as a cancer risk, the authors note. The BMJ study, “Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort,” involving 101,257 adults, including 79,724 women, found an increase in daily sugary drink consumption of 100 ml was associated with a sharp raise of overall cancer incidence as well as of breast cancer. According to Eloi Chazelas, co-author, “We observed that a 100mL per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks (which represents a small glass) was associated with approximately an 18% increased risk of overall cancer, and approximately 22% for breast cancer.” In specific sub-analyses, both pure fruit juices and other sugary drinks also were associated with an increased overall risk of cancer, he told Health Policy Watch. Participants came from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort of an even larger Franco-Belgium study examining the relationship between nutrition and health, in terms of not only cancer incidence, but also cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The study began in 2009 with participants added on a rolling basis until 2018; some participants were followed for as long as 9 years, with a median period of 5 years, with the average age of participants 42 years. The study examined consumption of 97 sugary drink items and 12 artificially sweetened beverage items. The sugary drinks included fruit juices comprising 100 percent fruit juice, without added sugar. Asked about the study’s findings, WHO Senior External Relations Officer Menno van Hilten told Health Policy Watch that WHO has not so far systematically reviewed potential associations of sugar consumption with cancer risks. WHO has not been looking at cancer as an outcome of free sugars consumption yet,” he said, adding that WHO also doesn’t comment on individual studies. Rather, WHO works on systematic reviews of evidence once evidence has accumulated. However, overall, WHO has been pressing for stronger policy measures to cut sugar consumption, including guidelines recommending strict limitations in sugar consumption, including in sugary drinks, due to its already well-documented links to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It has also supported policies to raise awareness on the health hazards brought by sugary drinks as well as policy measures that make healthier food choices cheaper and more accessible. Sugar in Drinks: Why Can It Increase Cancer Risk, Not Only Diabetes? Sugary drinks and the sugar they contain are already known risk factors for obesity, weight gain, insulin resistance, and increased proinflammatory markers, all of which are risk factors for cancer. But a direct link between sugary drinks and cancer has been less explored, according to the authors, with very few prospective studies conducted on the association between sugary drinks and individual cancer sites. Mechanisms underlying a link between sugary drinks and cancer might involve insulin resistance, according to the study, as foods with a comparatively higher glycaemic index, cause a rapid rise in blood sugar levels, or glycaemic load, and have been linked with breast cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and diabetes-related carcinomas. Additionally, sugary drink consumption tends to increase weight gain, further adding to their cancer risks: “Excess weight is a strong risk factor for mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophageal (adenocarcinoma), stomach (cardia), pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, colorectal, breast (postmenopause), ovarian, endometrial, prostate (advanced), and kidney cancers,” the study notes, building on previous results. But beyond weight gain, sugary drinks might promote gains in visceral adiposity independently of body weight, according to the study. Visceral adiposity, which refers to fat accumulation around the visceral organs, is responsible for much higher chronic disease risk than fat on the thighs, NutriNet-Santé study coordinator Dr Mathilde Touvier told Health Policy Watch. At this stage, it seems the authors cannot say whether different types of sugar and their different sources produce different effects in the body, and additional research is planned in the context of a new project of the NutriNet-Santé study. The study found that the median sugar content for sugary drinks was 10.7g/100ml, while most public health agencies set the recommended level at zero. Only water is recommended, even if unsweetened coffee or tea can also participate to the daily liquid intake. Can the same conclusions be drawn about sugary foods and cancer? According to Touvier, very few studies have been carried out so far and the topic will be investigated in NutriNet-Santé soon. 100 Percent Fruit Juices Also in Culprit Group; What About Whole Fruits? For those who thought that unsweetened fruit juices were healthy, the conclusion of the study is brutal. Making up 45 percent of all sugary drinks that are consumed overall, 100 percent fruit juices also were positively associated with an overall increased rate of cancer. If fruit juice is unhealthy, why does WHO recommend eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding starchy roots)? According to Touvier and Chazelas, “entire fruits contain more dietary fibres,” and this means that the body absorbs the sugar contained much more slowly, leading to a lower overall glycaemic load than for fruit juice. Whole fruits also help satiate the appetite more rapidly than juice, as they said “eating an orange is more efficient in filling the stomach than drinking the juice of one orange.” 100% fruit juices generally contain high levels of simple sugar, sometimes higher than regular soda, and their glycaemic indexes are higher than that of whole fruits, the study found. The recommendation on fruit juices in France is “less than one glass per day.” Artificial Sweeteners Off the Hook, Not a Blank Check While study results partly exonerate artificially sweetened drinks, Touvier told Health Policy Watch that those results should be taken cautiously, because the number of consumers of artificially sweetened beverages was limited, as well as the amounts consumed. Touvier, who also heads the Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN) in Paris, warned about drawing hasty conclusions about artificial sweeteners not having an impact on cancer incidence. “The message from this paper should definitively not be to switch from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened beverages.” The adverse cardiometabolic health effects of artificial sweeteners have been reported and some experimental studies suggested potential adverse effects, she explained, adding that further investigation is needed. For example, there is a lack of human data on cocktails of artificial sweeteners and other food additives, and a large-scale project is being launched by NutriNet-Santé on that topic. In particular, chemical compounds in sugary drinks, such as 4-methylimidazole in drinks containing caramel colourings, could influence cancer incidence. Policy Implications Along with guidelines issued in 2015, WHO in 2017 issued guidance suggesting taxation of sugary drinks as a measure to help reduce overall sugar consumption and thus disease risks. Civil society groups also have been active in promoting food labelling and tax policies at the national level to reduce consumption of sugar and sugary drinks. Last January, at the WHO Executive Board meeting, a large consensus formed in support of a recent WHO review of evidence on the effectiveness of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means to reduce sugar consumption. The review was part of a report following up on United Nations General Assembly’s high level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The WHO drew on nine recent peer-reviewed studies of evidence of the impact of reducing sugar consumption through taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages at national and sub-national levels. The WHO review examined the outcomes of taxes on included fruit juices and sweetened or flavoured milk-based drinks. Only Italy and the United States pushed back against the findings, asking that the summary of evidence – on how taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks may help reduce unhealthy sugar consumption – be deleted from the progress report on tackling NCDs, and that public awareness-raising measures should rather be the focus of NCD prevention. Vital Strategies, a large NGO working with governments, notes that there are currently 45 countries which have implemented taxes or levies on sugary drinks. In an interview with Health Policy Watch, Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Vital Strategies for Policy, Advocacy and Communications explained different policy levers that can be used to curb sugary drinks consumption, and make healthier choices easier for consumers. Besides taxes, other policy levers include restricting the marketing and availability of unhealthy products to children, clear warning labels, communication campaigns to create awareness, and other pricing and policies to make healthy food choice more accessible. In a related development this month, the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe raised alarm about the high level of sugar found in certain brands of baby foods, incorrectly marketed as suitable for infants under the age of six months. Earlier this year, the BMJ published another study showing that tobacco industry giants built some of the leading sugary drink brands that have been marketed to children over the past 50 years, using marketing strategies developed by the tobacco industry. Image Credits: PIXNIO. Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Sugar In Sodas, Fruit Juices May Increase Cancer Risks, Even With A Small Daily Intake 22/07/2019 Catherine Saez A new BMJ study by French researchers has reinforced the link between consumption of sugar-laced sodas & fruit juices and cancer incidence, in particular breast cancer. The study – the largest ever of its kind – is significant because while the link between sugar consumption and diabetes, obesity, and hypertension has been well documented, there have been fewer studies on sugary drinks as a cancer risk, the authors note. The BMJ study, “Sugary drink consumption and risk of cancer: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort,” involving 101,257 adults, including 79,724 women, found an increase in daily sugary drink consumption of 100 ml was associated with a sharp raise of overall cancer incidence as well as of breast cancer. According to Eloi Chazelas, co-author, “We observed that a 100mL per day increase in the consumption of sugary drinks (which represents a small glass) was associated with approximately an 18% increased risk of overall cancer, and approximately 22% for breast cancer.” In specific sub-analyses, both pure fruit juices and other sugary drinks also were associated with an increased overall risk of cancer, he told Health Policy Watch. Participants came from the French NutriNet-Santé cohort of an even larger Franco-Belgium study examining the relationship between nutrition and health, in terms of not only cancer incidence, but also cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and hypertension. The study began in 2009 with participants added on a rolling basis until 2018; some participants were followed for as long as 9 years, with a median period of 5 years, with the average age of participants 42 years. The study examined consumption of 97 sugary drink items and 12 artificially sweetened beverage items. The sugary drinks included fruit juices comprising 100 percent fruit juice, without added sugar. Asked about the study’s findings, WHO Senior External Relations Officer Menno van Hilten told Health Policy Watch that WHO has not so far systematically reviewed potential associations of sugar consumption with cancer risks. WHO has not been looking at cancer as an outcome of free sugars consumption yet,” he said, adding that WHO also doesn’t comment on individual studies. Rather, WHO works on systematic reviews of evidence once evidence has accumulated. However, overall, WHO has been pressing for stronger policy measures to cut sugar consumption, including guidelines recommending strict limitations in sugar consumption, including in sugary drinks, due to its already well-documented links to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. It has also supported policies to raise awareness on the health hazards brought by sugary drinks as well as policy measures that make healthier food choices cheaper and more accessible. Sugar in Drinks: Why Can It Increase Cancer Risk, Not Only Diabetes? Sugary drinks and the sugar they contain are already known risk factors for obesity, weight gain, insulin resistance, and increased proinflammatory markers, all of which are risk factors for cancer. But a direct link between sugary drinks and cancer has been less explored, according to the authors, with very few prospective studies conducted on the association between sugary drinks and individual cancer sites. Mechanisms underlying a link between sugary drinks and cancer might involve insulin resistance, according to the study, as foods with a comparatively higher glycaemic index, cause a rapid rise in blood sugar levels, or glycaemic load, and have been linked with breast cancer, hepatocellular cancer, and diabetes-related carcinomas. Additionally, sugary drink consumption tends to increase weight gain, further adding to their cancer risks: “Excess weight is a strong risk factor for mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophageal (adenocarcinoma), stomach (cardia), pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, colorectal, breast (postmenopause), ovarian, endometrial, prostate (advanced), and kidney cancers,” the study notes, building on previous results. But beyond weight gain, sugary drinks might promote gains in visceral adiposity independently of body weight, according to the study. Visceral adiposity, which refers to fat accumulation around the visceral organs, is responsible for much higher chronic disease risk than fat on the thighs, NutriNet-Santé study coordinator Dr Mathilde Touvier told Health Policy Watch. At this stage, it seems the authors cannot say whether different types of sugar and their different sources produce different effects in the body, and additional research is planned in the context of a new project of the NutriNet-Santé study. The study found that the median sugar content for sugary drinks was 10.7g/100ml, while most public health agencies set the recommended level at zero. Only water is recommended, even if unsweetened coffee or tea can also participate to the daily liquid intake. Can the same conclusions be drawn about sugary foods and cancer? According to Touvier, very few studies have been carried out so far and the topic will be investigated in NutriNet-Santé soon. 100 Percent Fruit Juices Also in Culprit Group; What About Whole Fruits? For those who thought that unsweetened fruit juices were healthy, the conclusion of the study is brutal. Making up 45 percent of all sugary drinks that are consumed overall, 100 percent fruit juices also were positively associated with an overall increased rate of cancer. If fruit juice is unhealthy, why does WHO recommend eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day (excluding starchy roots)? According to Touvier and Chazelas, “entire fruits contain more dietary fibres,” and this means that the body absorbs the sugar contained much more slowly, leading to a lower overall glycaemic load than for fruit juice. Whole fruits also help satiate the appetite more rapidly than juice, as they said “eating an orange is more efficient in filling the stomach than drinking the juice of one orange.” 100% fruit juices generally contain high levels of simple sugar, sometimes higher than regular soda, and their glycaemic indexes are higher than that of whole fruits, the study found. The recommendation on fruit juices in France is “less than one glass per day.” Artificial Sweeteners Off the Hook, Not a Blank Check While study results partly exonerate artificially sweetened drinks, Touvier told Health Policy Watch that those results should be taken cautiously, because the number of consumers of artificially sweetened beverages was limited, as well as the amounts consumed. Touvier, who also heads the Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN) in Paris, warned about drawing hasty conclusions about artificial sweeteners not having an impact on cancer incidence. “The message from this paper should definitively not be to switch from sugary drinks to artificially sweetened beverages.” The adverse cardiometabolic health effects of artificial sweeteners have been reported and some experimental studies suggested potential adverse effects, she explained, adding that further investigation is needed. For example, there is a lack of human data on cocktails of artificial sweeteners and other food additives, and a large-scale project is being launched by NutriNet-Santé on that topic. In particular, chemical compounds in sugary drinks, such as 4-methylimidazole in drinks containing caramel colourings, could influence cancer incidence. Policy Implications Along with guidelines issued in 2015, WHO in 2017 issued guidance suggesting taxation of sugary drinks as a measure to help reduce overall sugar consumption and thus disease risks. Civil society groups also have been active in promoting food labelling and tax policies at the national level to reduce consumption of sugar and sugary drinks. Last January, at the WHO Executive Board meeting, a large consensus formed in support of a recent WHO review of evidence on the effectiveness of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages as a means to reduce sugar consumption. The review was part of a report following up on United Nations General Assembly’s high level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The WHO drew on nine recent peer-reviewed studies of evidence of the impact of reducing sugar consumption through taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages at national and sub-national levels. The WHO review examined the outcomes of taxes on included fruit juices and sweetened or flavoured milk-based drinks. Only Italy and the United States pushed back against the findings, asking that the summary of evidence – on how taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks may help reduce unhealthy sugar consumption – be deleted from the progress report on tackling NCDs, and that public awareness-raising measures should rather be the focus of NCD prevention. Vital Strategies, a large NGO working with governments, notes that there are currently 45 countries which have implemented taxes or levies on sugary drinks. In an interview with Health Policy Watch, Sandra Mullin, Senior Vice President of Vital Strategies for Policy, Advocacy and Communications explained different policy levers that can be used to curb sugary drinks consumption, and make healthier choices easier for consumers. Besides taxes, other policy levers include restricting the marketing and availability of unhealthy products to children, clear warning labels, communication campaigns to create awareness, and other pricing and policies to make healthy food choice more accessible. In a related development this month, the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe raised alarm about the high level of sugar found in certain brands of baby foods, incorrectly marketed as suitable for infants under the age of six months. Earlier this year, the BMJ published another study showing that tobacco industry giants built some of the leading sugary drink brands that have been marketed to children over the past 50 years, using marketing strategies developed by the tobacco industry. Image Credits: PIXNIO. Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Patients treated for visceral leishmaniasis can still transmit the disease even after completing treatment, study shows 22/07/2019 Editorial team [DNDi Press Release] Geneva/New Delhi – 22 July 2019 The results of an innovative “infectivity” study conducted by the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) confirm that people successfully treated for visceral leishmaniasis in South Asia can still infect others if they develop a skin condition known as post-kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis (PKDL). The results were published in Clinical Infectious Diseases this week. Patients can develop PKDL – skin lesions in the form of rashes and nodules – usually six months to one year after successfully completing treatment for visceral leishmaniasis, a deadly parasitic disease transmitted by sandflies also known as kala-azar, or black fever. PKDL lesions contain the same parasite that causes kala-azar. The objective of the study was to assess whether parasites in the skin of PKDL patients could be transmitted to the sandflies that transmit kala-azar. “This is the largest study of its type to date. Until now, information on the role of PKDL was scarce and scattered across decades of different research initiatives,” said Dr Jorge Alvar, Senior Leishmaniasis Advisor at DNDi and co-principal investigator of the study. “The results unequivocally show that PKDL is of pivotal importance for maintaining transmission of the disease in-between epidemics.“ As part of the trial, PKDL patients allowed themselves to be bitten by laboratory-reared sandflies (which were free from infection) by plunging their hands into a cage for 15 minutes containing male and female sandflies. The sandflies were then analysed for the parasites that cause kala-azar. The results showed that nearly 60% of the 47 PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies. This means the insects could then go on to infect someone else. “Because PKDL is not fatal it has largely been ignored by public health efforts, and many scientific questions around its role have remained unaddressed,” said Dr Dinesh Mondal, Senior Scientist at the icddr,b and principal investigator of the study. “While these new findings don’t answer all our questions, they do show that early treatment of PKDL patients will be a critical element of any leishmaniasis public health and elimination strategy.“ People with PKDL sometimes remain untreated for a long time. Transmission of the disease could therefore be occurring even when kala-azar is controlled and small numbers are being reported. “Great strides have been made in the control of kala-azar in South Asia, but this study shows that now we must engage in active PKDL case detection and provide prompt treatment as an integral part of kala-azar control and elimination,” said Dr Suman Rijal, Director of the DNDi Regional Office in India. “PKDL must be addressed in order to sustain elimination or we risk jeopardizing our earlier successes.“ Forty-seven PKDL and 15 kala-azar patients were tested by xenodiagnosis. The results showed that depending on the type of PKDL lesion, 35% (9/26) of the macular to 86% (18/21) of the nodular PKDL patients in the study passed on the parasites to sandflies (p 0,0009), while 67% of the 10/15 kala-azar control patients did. This means the insects biting the skin of a PKDL patient could then go on to infect someone else. DNDi is now preparing a similar study in Sudan. DNDi is also running clinical trials to test two treatment regimens for patients with PKDL, in South Asia and East Africa, in a bid to make treatments simpler, safer, and more effective. Learn more Read stories of people struggling with PKDL in Bihar state in India, one of the areas in the country most affected by kala-azar: Story – The disease that strikes back About DNDi A not-for-profit research and development organization, DNDi works to deliver new treatments for neglected patients, those suffering with Chagas disease, sleeping sickness (human African trypanosomiasis), leishmaniasis, filarial infections, mycetoma, paediatric HIV, and hepatitis C. Since its inception in 2003, DNDi has delivered eight new treatments to date, including new drug combinations for kala-azar, two fixed-dose antimalarials, and DNDi’s first successfully developed new chemical entity, fexinidazole, approved in 2018 for the treatment of both stages of sleeping sickness. Image Credits: DNDi. Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Drug R&D, Sexual & Reproductive Health Scrutinised In Draft UHC Declaration 19/07/2019 David Branigan Disclosure of costs for drug research and development (R&D) and “alternative financing mechanisms” for new health products remain outstanding points to be resolved by countries in finalising a draft United Nations General Assembly political declaration on universal health coverage (UHC). A final draft of the declaration had been expected this week, but as of Friday afternoon, language on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and drug development issues appeared to be unresolved in the draft text, obtained by Health Policy Watch. Observers close to the negotiations told Health Policy Watch that they feared that disputes over the SRHR language in particular could extend finalising the declaration beyond this month. If negotiations around SRHR become divisive, sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could even extend into September, just ahead of the UN General Assembly High-Level meeting on UHC. That language has been controversial in light of opposition by the US as well as some developing countries to any references to sexual or reproductive health that could imply access to abortion. Additionally, the Group of 77 (G77), a coalition of 134 developing nations, have experienced sharp differences of opinion on both access to abortion and contraception, and members have decided not to vote as a bloc on the issue, sources said. United Nations Headquarters in New York The 12 July draft text of the UHC declaration, obtained by Health Policy Watch and confirmed as authentic by two sources, includes some bracketed text, indicating outright disagreement, and highlighted text, indicating language still up for discussion. The reference to transparency of the “costs” of R&D is bracketed, and much of the language on alternative financing mechanisms for research and development is highlighted. Despite intense debates over sexual and reproductive health and rights in recent UN fora, the paragraph on SRHR includes no brackets or highlighting, and has remained unchanged from the initial “zero” draft of the text issued in late May. However, some negotiators still see potential controversy “looming” over the sensitive SRHR language, and say that the timeline for finalising the declaration will largely be determined by the progress of negotiations on this issue. Other aspects of the declaration, for which there appears to be no controversy, include: Increasing investment in primary health care as the vehicle for UHC; Strengthening health systems to more comprehensively prevent and treat communicable and non-communicable diseases; Addressing environmental factors that negatively affect health including the impacts of climate change; Improving emergency preparedness and response systems; Ensuring affordable access to health services, including “essential, safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines and vaccines.” Once finalised, the declaration will be issued at the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on UHC on 23 September in New York. R&D Transparency, Alternative Financing for Innovation Still Up for Discussion This year has already seen intensive debates over the public disclosure of medicines prices and research and development costs at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May. That was followed by debate last week at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) over “delinkage” of R&D costs from the price of medicines. In both fora, several high-income countries had distanced themselves from language in the final adopted texts. In the case of the WHA resolution, the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary “disassociated” themselves altogether from the final resolution. In the case of the HRC resolution, Japan protested the delinkage clauses. Sources noted that a similar dynamic could arise with the UHC declaration, as these debates continue as core aspects of member state negotiations in yet another UN forum. In the UHC draft declaration, paragraph 11.e of the preamble – which is reportedly still up for discussion – recognises that “the high prices for some health products, and inequitable access to such products within and among countries, as well as financial hardships associated with high prices of health products continue to impede progress towards achieving universal health coverage.” In the so-called operative paragraphs of the resolution, disagreement is said to revolve around a reference in paragraph 47 calling for “increasing transparency of prices [and cost],” of research and development – something which many pharmaceutical companies consider to be proprietary information. Paragraph 50, which encourages “the use, where appropriate, of alternative financing mechanisms for research and development as a driver of innovation for new medicines and new uses for medicines,” also appears to be the focus of significant discussion, as the entire paragraph is highlighted. It refers to the concept of delinkage, encouraging support for “voluntary initiatives and incentive mechanisms that separate the cost of investment in research and development from the price and volume of sales, to facilitate equitable and affordable access to new tools and other results to be gained through research and development.” According to sources close to the negotiations, this paragraph uses the term “separate” rather than “delink,” to avoid any negative association the term could carry among proponents of traditional R&D systems, which rely on exclusive patents to create incentives for private sector investment in R&D. By instead relying on alternative financing mechanisms to incentivise innovation, such as cash prizes and upfront funding, delinkage provides an alternative to traditional R&D incentives based on exclusive patents, known to create monopolies that drive up drug prices. In addition to separating price, this paragraph also calls for separating the “volume of sales” from the cost of R&D investment, referring to the critical need to develop new antibiotics while at the same time limiting their use to treat drug-resistant infections caused by antimicrobial resistance. Lastly, this paragraph mentions that these alternative financing mechanisms be applied “[in potential areas where market failure exists],” which is in brackets, indicating disagreement. According to sources, critics of traditional R&D systems that incentivise innovation through exclusive patents put this phrase in brackets. They consider the concept of isolated market failures of this R&D system – resulting in neglected diseases and insufficient R&D of new antibiotics – to be inadequate to address the broader reforms they think are needed across the R&D landscape. Paragraph 48, which references member states’ rights to flexibly apply intellectual property rules for the protection of public health, so far remains unchanged. This is likely due to the fact that this same language was already agreed-upon in the 2018 UN General Assembly declaration on tuberculosis (TB), so the precedent had already been set. These flexibilities enable countries to legally produce affordable generic versions of patented drugs for the purposes of safeguarding public health. In paragraph 49, the recognition that public health-driven research and development should be guided by the principles of “safety, affordability, effectiveness, efficiency, [and] equity,” was added without controversy, sources said. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Yet to Be Negotiated? Currently, the paragraph on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the 12 July draft of the UHC declaration remains unchanged from the zero draft of the declaration, issued just after the close of the World Health Assembly in May. However, if a disagreement erupts over the SRHR language, it would likely be even deeper than that over the issue of drug R&D. Sources warned that the timeline for finalising the declaration could be delayed beyond the tentative July deadline, and even run the risk of extending into September just ahead of the high-level meeting on UHC. This was the experience in the negotiations to finalise the 2018 UN declaration on TB – which were stalled by disagreement over the language on intellectual property flexibilities – in the lead-up to the UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis last September. The United States and some developing countries have previously spoken out against the language on SRHR in the UHC declaration, saying that it can be broadly interpreted to include abortion, and that it encourages countries to change their laws on abortion. At a WHA meeting on UHC in May, the US emphasised that a country “should develop approaches to make progress on UHC within its own cultural, economic, political, and structural realities and priorities.” The Philippines, where abortion is illegal, supported this position. At recent negotiations in the Human Rights Council over a resolution on ending early and childhood marriage, a number of countries from the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia objected to language ensuring freedom for girls to be informed about and make choices on their own sexual and reproductive health. In the current draft, the paragraph on SRHR reads as follows: “65. Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences, including universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes, and recognizing that the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on all matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, as a contribution to the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women and the realization of their human rights;” Image Credits: UN. Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Two-Thirds Of People In Low & Middle-Income Countries With Hypertension Don’t Get Treatment 19/07/2019 Catherine Saez Hypertension, which has been called a silent killer because it often goes unnoticed, is one of the world’s leading causes of death – potentially leading to heart attack, stroke, and kidney failure, as well as blindness. Now, a new study in The Lancet has found that two-thirds of people in low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence of hypertension is rising most rapidly, don’t receive any treatment at all. People in sub-Saharan Africa, which has the highest incidence of hypertension, or high blood pressure, had the least access to treatment, according to the study, The state of hypertension care in 44 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level data from 1·1 million adults, published Thursday. Photo: REUTERS/Baz Ratner The study noted that “even if care is provided free of charge, time lost from income-generating activities and transport costs can still pose a substantial obstacle to accessing care for those with little income and savings.” It added that “individuals with lower educational attainment might be less well equipped to engage with relevant health promotion messages and to actively negotiate an effective treatment plan with health-care providers.” Lindsay Jaacks, assistant professor of global health at Harvard Chan School School of Public Health and one of the study’s lead authors, told Health Policy Watch that: “Addressing the gaps in treatment, is going to require government investments to keep out-of-pocket expenses for anti-hypertensive medications low and ensure that they are consistently available at primary health centers. Improving gaps in blood pressure control among hypertensives is a bit more complicated and will involve overcoming challenges outside the health system, such as social awareness of the risks associated with high blood pressure, tobacco, air pollution, and salty diets, among others. Coherent multi-sector actions with robust accountability mechanisms are really what’s going to raise that bar.” The Lancet study, which examined the data of people living in 44 low- and middle-income countries, also found that less than half of suspected hypertension cases are properly diagnosed. A mere 10 percent of people with hypertension have their blood pressure under control. To evaluate how well health systems were responding, the authors used a “cascade of care approach,” looking country by country at the numbers of people with hypertension who had been screened, diagnosed, treated, and had their condition under control. Urgent Need for Prevention: Reduce Air Pollution, Sugar, Transfats & Alcohol Consumption “The low proportion of patients with high blood pressure getting the treatment they need, along with the growing number of patients with high blood pressure, suggests the very urgent need for population-level prevention,” Jaacks was quoted as saying in a press release. This, she said, refers especially to preventative policies “that get salt and trans-fat out of the food supply, promote fruits and vegetables, reduce air pollution, and address excessive consumption of tobacco and alcohol.” While countries in sub-Saharan African had the worst performance on average, in terms of access to care along all four steps of the “cascade”, Latin American and Caribbean countries scored the best. However, wide differences were also noted between countries, with some doing better than might be expected in relation to their level of economic development. The study authors cited Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Kyrgyzstan, and Peru, which “performed significantly better on all care cascade steps than predicted based on GDP per capita.” The study also found that certain factors made it more likely people would advance to diagnosis and treatment regardless of where they live: “Being a woman, older, more educated, wealthier, and not being a current smoker were all positively associated with attaining each of the four steps of the care cascade.” Rising Rate of Hypertension Worldwide The number of people with hypertension has nearly doubled over the past 40 years, says the World Health Organization, increasing from 594 million people in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015, with low and middle-income countries bearing most of the increased burden of disease. According to WHO, the highest hypertension prevalence today is in fact in in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). The World Health Organization describes hypertension as a “condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure… Blood pressure is created by the force of blood pushing against the walls of blood vessels (arteries) as it is pumped by the heart. The higher the pressure, the harder the heart has to pump.” One out of four adult men and one out of five adult women suffer from high blood pressure, according to WHO. However, as few as one in five people with hypertension have it under control. Main contributors to the rise in hypertension are unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco, and air pollution exposures, according to WHO. Global HEARTS Initiative The WHO and the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 launched the “Global HEARTS Initiative” that aims to curb the prevalence of hypertension by 25 percent by 2025. The initiative is primarily geared to support governments to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases. Fifteen countries have started implementing HEARTS’ five technical packages: Healthy-lifestyle counseling; Evidence-based treatment protocols; Access to essential medicines and technology; Team-based care; and Systems for monitoring. Those countries are: Barbados, Bhutan, Colombia, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Cardiovascular diseases prevention is also promoted through other WHO initiatives: MPOWER (control tobacco), Active (increase physical activity), SHAKE (reduce salt consumption) and REPLACE (eliminate trans-fat). WHO’s factsheet on hypertension shows no region is escaping the issue, with the greatest prevalence in Africa (27 percent), closely followed by the Eastern Mediterranean region (26 percent), by South East Asia (25 percent), and by Europe (23 percent). The lowest incidence can be found in the Americas (18 percent), and in the Western Pacific region (19 percent). Image Credits: REUTERS/Baz Ratner. Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts
Ebola Emergency Shadowed By Cross-Border Risks, Funding Gaps & Vaccine Challenges 18/07/2019 Elaine Ruth Fletcher Against the background of increased cross-border infection risks, the World Health Organization on Wednesday declared the Ebola virus outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) – a decision that may help increase aid flows to the disease epicentre but also threaten free-wheeling patterns of regional trade and travel, which are the norm today for local communities, oiling their economies. Meeting of the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for Ebola Viral Disease The WHO decision, announced by Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at an evening press conference broadcast live on Twitter, came against the backdrop of a visibly looming Ebola funding crisis, as well as more subtle disagreements over deployment of a second back-up vaccine, which some proponents say would strengthen preparedness. WHO officials said money was not the motive for the PHEIC declaration by a special Emergencies Committee on Ebola. But Mike Ryan, WHO’s head of Health Emergencies, stressed that the Organization and its other health partners would require in excess of US$ 230 million to effectively fight the deadly outbreak in the coming months. And that does not include other support required for security, humanitarian assistance or infrastructure. Fresh worries about the infection spreading to Uganda also emerged on the same day, heightening concerns about international transmission. The Ugandan Ministry of Health put its public on high alert after a DRC fish trader, who had turned up sick and vomiting in a Ugandan market last week, died of Ebola on Monday upon returning home to the DRC. In a press release, the Ugandan Ministry appealed to the public to “avoid handshaking, hugging, mass gatherings,” in the wake of the fish trader’s death in Beni, DRC, days after crossing illegally into Uganda on 11 July. Such traffic back and forth is common for not only business but also for meetings between extended families straddling parts of DRC’s porous border. That border is shared not only with Uganda and Rwanda, which have relatively robust surveillance systems, but also fragile states such as Burundi and South Sudan. Even so, Dr Tedros stressed that regional and international borders to DRC remain open. Hindering trade or travel could spur Ebola’s spread – by driving the heavy traffic of merchants through illegal crossings where there are no infection screening measures, he said. “I emphasise that WHO does not recommend any restrictions on travel or trade, which rather than stopping Ebola could hinder the fight,” the WHO Director General said. “Closing borders could have disastrous consequences on people who cross the border every day. Such restrictions force people to use informal and un-monitored crossings, increasing the risk of the disease.” Dr Tedros also stressed that the DRC government was being “completely transparent” about new cases emerging – notifying neighbouring countries of any emerging risks. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), adopted in 2005, countries are legally committed to respond to a PHEIC, including through measures such as public disclosure of disease incidence. A front-line Ebola responder meets with a family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda, meanwhile, noted that the fish trader’s Ugandan contacts were being traced and would be “immediately vaccinated.” Along with avoiding public gatherings, the Ministry urged the public to step up infection control measures such as hand-washing. It also stressed that currently, there are no known cases of new Ebola infection in the country – following the deaths of three people in June, also exposed in cross border contacts. So far, Uganda has been a poster child for preparedness, recruiting local communities and health workers to screen travelers at its border crossings and patrolling illegal crossing points with local communities, among other measures. However, measures overall remain inadequate, said Robert Steffan, Chair of the WHO Emergency Committee on Ebola Virus Disease, speaking at the WHO press conference, following the conclusion of the meeting of the Emergency Committee. “Preparedness must be enhanced in neighboring countries. So far there is insufficient preparedness,” Steffan said. But he also stressed that the PHEIC declaration “should not interfere with travel and trade more than needed.” “Explicitly, there should be no closure of borders by neighbouring countries of the DRC or anywhere else, because that would have a terrible impact on the economy of the affected regions, and negative consequences on the fight against the outbreak,” he emphasised, “This is still a regional emergency and by no way a global threat.” Rationale of the Emergency Committee Recommendation Referring to the written recommendations of the Committee, which had met throughout Wednesday afternoon, Steffan said that the Committee had decided to declare an emergency because of the fear of the spread of Ebola from the DRC “gateway” city of Goma along the border with Rwanda, where a pastor from Beni had travelled and fallen ill last week; recurring transmission in Beni, one of the DRC cities at the epicentre of the outbreak in the province of North Kivu; ongoing security risks to responders, and the duration of the outbreak, approaching one year. According to data released Wednesday evening by the DRC Ministry of Health, another 10 new Ebola cases had been confirmed in just the past two days, with a total of 2522 confirmed or probable cases of Ebola infection since the outbreak began last August, from which 1698 people have now died and 717 have survived. Further adding to the complexity, outbreaks of measles and cholera have left over 2000 people dead in DRC between only January and July, according to WHO. Some 198 Ebola responders have been attacked, of which 7 have died. “There is disappointment that there has been a recurrence of intense transmission in Beni, so that the geographical expansion is now some 500 km,” Steffan told the press conference. “The fight is ongoing for a full year now, and lastly the assassination of two Ebola workers demonstrates the continued risk to responders due to the security situation.” He also voiced strong concerns about funding gaps, saying “resources have become a limiting factor in technical assistance. Increasingly there is lack of staff and of financial support. There must be more engagement by the global community to end this outbreak.” At the same time, Steffan praised the performance of WHO and its UN partners as well as the DRC government and NGOs working in the field, saying: “The PHEIC is not declared as a reflection on the sub-optimal performance of those in the field. The rationale is to better cope with the volatile characteristics of the outbreak; the strategy is not to be changed. We need to intensify the actions and also to become more proactive.” Indeed, the declaration seemed to immediately unleash a flurry of media attention, heightened calls for funding, and new offers of support. John Nkengasong of Africa CDC – Centres for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday that the PHEIC alert would enable Africa CDC to deploy its African Volunteer Health Corps, a group that was used effectively in West Africa to respond to the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak. “This is a declaration that is usually issued when an event is extraordinary, serious and has the potential to cross beyond the country where it is and have a regional and international effect from the public health perspective,” said Nkengasong in a video message. “This is an important declaration because that changes the way that Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Africa Union can support the Democratic Republic of Congo to respond to this outbreak.” USAID Administrator Mark Green meanwhile called upon other donor countries to increase the funding flow to the Ebola response. In a statement posted on the USAID website and Twitter, Green noted that “USAID has provided more than $98 million to the Ebola response in the DRC since the outbreak began in August 2018. As the single largest donor to this response, the United States encourages other donors to help bring this outbreak to an end as soon as possible. As donors, international organizations, and NGOs continue to step up, we urge greater financial accountability and full-data sharing to provide clarity on what is being done, and what it will take, to end this outbreak.” There were also calls in some corners for the World Bank to release more money from its Pandemic Emergency Financing Facility. So far, some $US 20 million has been released by the Bank to support UNICEF and WHO, with WHO receiving $6.5 million, according to Ryan at the Wednesday press conference. But some said that amount was woefully inadequate. “So far the @WorldBank has delivered only $6.5M to @WHO for the #Ebola fight. You have a pandemic fund — release the money! What are you waiting for — another 1,000 dead? Dead Ugandans? Dead Rwandans?” tweeted Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. According to a February press release, the World Bank had announced a commitment of $US 80 million in grants and credits to the Ebola Strategic Response Plan (SRP 3) running from February to July 2019. While WHO officials said that hundreds of millions of US dollars will be required to support a fourth phase of public health response (SRP 4) to the end of 2019, funding for the current period has only amounted to only $US 48.4 million – or less than half of the $USD 98.4 million needed, officials told Health Policy Watch. WHO Recommends Deployment of Second Ebola Vaccine In what could be one major strategy shift, WHO’s Executive Director of its Health Emergencies Programme acknowledged that the Organization had resumed talks with the DRC government about introducing a second experimental Ebola vaccine, produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), into periphery zones of risk. This was after DRC’s Health Minister Oly Ilunga had declared Monday at a UN high level meeting of Ebola emergencies leadership, that it would not deploy the second vaccine – for fears of creating “confusion” after a hard-fought battle to convince communities in the regions of North Kivu and Ituri that an experimental Merck vaccine now in use is indeed reliable. Wellcome Trust’s Epidemics Lead, Josie Golding had criticised the DRC decision, saying that holding back deployment of the second vaccine could ultimately harm the response effort – particularly if the Merck vaccine, which has only been produced in a limited supply of about 300,000 doses, runs out. More than 164,000 people already have been vaccinated with the Merck preparation, although since the original vaccine dose has since been reduced by almost half, estimates vary as to how many doses are left. In an interview today with Health Policy Watch, Golding stressed that while the J&J vaccine requires two successive doses to create immunity, it could be an important “preventative” tool complementing the Merck vaccine. Since there are 1.5 million doses available, it could also be deployed now in areas or populations at more peripheral risk, enhancing preparedness throughout the wider region. Golding acknowledged that the concerns of the DRC government were understandable, insofar as the Merck vaccine, previously used in the 2014-15 West Africa epidemic, had developed a clear track record in the DRC emergency, provoking a very rapid and effective immune response. Notwithstanding, Golding said that the second vaccine could be used as a second-line of prevention. “There has never been an assumption that it [the J&J vaccine] would be used directly with those that have come into contact with Ebola where the outbreak is occurring,” said Golding. “This is more about where would the disease go to, how can we think about where to use a preventative vaccine.” “It is not about the J&J vaccine, it is about having more vaccines available, knowing that these are two vaccines for different uses. One is an emergency vaccine, the other is for prevention.” While the J&J vaccine lacks the field testing that the Merck product has undergone, it has one further potential advantage, she added. It appears to protect against diverse strains of Ebola virus, while the Merck vaccine only protects against the strain that is presently causing the epidemic in DRC. Acknowledging a “gap” in Merck vaccine supplies, Ryan told today’s press conference that accelerating production of the emergency vaccine is the first priority. However, he added that “WHO supports, subject to appropriate national approvals, introduction of a second vaccine,” adding that this had previously been recommended by WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization. He added that the J&J version “seems to be the most likely candidate to be deployed in the field.” Ryan acknowledged: “Yes, the [DRC] Ministry has expressed concerns about introducing a second vaccine, mainly around confusion of the local population… We are working through those issues with them… They still remain open to deploy in areas not affected. We are working with government and [the vaccine] consortium to find the solutions that would allow the vaccine to be deployed.” In a follow-up statement just after the press conference, Golding welcomed WHO’s expression of support for the J&J vaccine deployment, saying: “It was good to hear Dr Ryan’s remarks on the matter. We look forward to future discussions on the topic.” She meanwhile commended WHO for the “tough decision” to declare the Public Health Emergency, saying: “As it moves into a second year, this incredibly challenging epidemic shows no sign of stopping soon. Over 1,600 people have died already, with children accounting for around a third of cases. The teams in the DRC deserve all our thanks, respect and support. There is a grave risk of a major increase in numbers, or spread to new locations – as we’ve seen this week in Goma, again in Uganda and recently close to the border of South Sudan.” “This is perhaps the most complicated epidemic the world has ever had to face, yet still the response in the DRC remains overstretched and underfunded. The calling of a PHEIC is an opportunity for a change in the response to help stop Ebola spreading and save lives. A step-up in the response, led by the DRC and with full international support, is critical if we are to bring the epidemic to an end. This must include enhanced diplomatic, public health, security and logistic efforts as well as releasing much needed financial resources.” “There is also a pressing need to introduce a second vaccine, by Johnson and Johnson, in the DRC – to protect communities outside of the current outbreak zone who are likely to be affected next. Countries should not wait for Ebola to spread across borders or appear on their doorstep before acting.” -Updated 18 July 2019 Image Credits: WHO. Posts navigation Older postsNewer posts