See highlights from GHTC's 2023 Innovating for Impact Awards

Search the GHTC website

Why GHTC is joining the call for an essential diagnostics list

Read time:
PATH/Gena Morgan

An essential diagnostic list list in a smart, cost-effective idea that could advance diagnostic R&D and access.

November 15, 2016 by Matthew Robinson

Researchers examine onchocerciasis (river blindness) diagnostic tests. PATH/Patrick McKernResearchers examine onchocerciasis (river blindness) diagnostic tests. PATH/Patrick McKernWithout the right diagnostics, we can’t effectively treat diseases. It’s an obvious statement. But in many low- and middle-income countries, doctors and health care workers don’t have access to the diagnostic tools they need, often because existing tests are too costly and not appropriate for low-resource settings or tests don’t exist at all. Without the right tests, doctors end up relying on patient symptoms, which can be remarkably similar across different diseases. The result can be devastating: A wrong diagnosis can lead to the wrong treatment or a failure to recognize the presence of disease with pandemic potential. This problem is a common one: in half of African countries, more than 80 percent of those treated for malaria receive medicine without confirmation of a diagnostics, and during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak, efforts to contain the outbreak were hampered by a lack of rapid, point-of-care tests that could be deployed easily in the field.

In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, a group of scientists and doctors suggested an innovative idea to improve global access to critically-needed diagnostic tools: create a list.

More specifically, they’re calling for the creation of an essential diagnostics list to complement the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines (EML). The EML provides guidance to countries on what drugs, therapies, and treatments should be made available to citizens to meet basic public health needs. Likewise, an essential diagnostics list would provide guidance on the vital diagnostics tests that should be available in each country, depending on its disease burden. In this way, the two lists would support and complement each other, with the diagnostics list identifying the tests needed to enable appropriate use of medicines on the EML.

The transformative potential of an essential diagnostics list

The authors of the article have detailed the many ways an essential diagnostics list could be a transformative force for improving diagnostic capacity and access. By setting global guidance on the diagnostics tests recommended to countries to address basic health needs, an essential diagnostics list could provide a forceful policy argument for governments to invest in making existing diagnostics more broadly available. A list could also encourage governments to make further improvements to health systems to support diagnostic use, including laboratory training programs and strengthening health infrastructure and supply chains.

But what GHTC is most excited about is one of the lesser-discussed aspects of an essential diagnostics list: its potential to catalyze research and development (R&D) of new diagnostic tools.

A patient gets tested for malaria. PATH/Gena MorganA patient gets tested for malaria. PATH/Gena Morgan

Diagnostic R&D is a significantly underfunded area of research, accounting for less than 5 percent of global funding of neglected disease R&D. The result is a lack of diagnostic tools targeting the specific health needs of low- and middle-income countries, such as easy-to-use platform technologies or rapid, point-of-care tests that can be used in remote, rural clinics.

By detailing which diagnostics are necessary to support health interventions on the EML, an essential diagnostics list would readily expose health areas where we today lack appropriate and effective tools. In this way, the list could signal to product developers, industry, and donors where funding and attention is needed to facilitate diagnostic R&D.

The impact of improved diagnostic access and capacity would be considerable: better care and treatment for patients, reduction in the inappropriate use of medicines which is contributing to drug resistance, and improved ability to detect emerging diseases like Zika and Ebola early before they become epidemics.

Joining the call for an essential diagnostics list

On Wednesday, GHTC sent a letter, signed by 11 of our member organizations, to WHO’s assistant director-general for Health Systems and Innovation calling for WHO to spearhead the creation of an essential diagnostics list. Given WHO’s experience in administering the EML and its ongoing work in providing guidance on diagnostic testing and laboratory accreditation; we believe the organization is uniquely positioned to lead on the development and implementation of this list. But making this initiative a reality will require the support of civil society and member states, as well as additional funding to stand-up the program at WHO.

It is clear that treatment can be improved with essential diagnostics—ones we have today and others yet to be developed. We urge WHO and its member states to heed this call to establish an essential diagnostics list. It’s a smart, cost-effective idea that could advance diagnostic R&D and access.

Update: On November 18, Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO Assistant Director-General for Health Systems and Innovation, replied to GHTC's letter indicating that WHO is pursuing analysis of the idea and outlining next steps. GHTC will continue to monitor progress and engage with WHO in support of this initiative.

Categories: Diagnostics, WHO

About the author

Matthew RobinsonGHTC

Matthew Robinson is a policy and advocacy officer at GHTC who leads the coalition's multilateral advocacy work.

Other Breakthroughs Blog posts you may like:
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
November 20, 2016

Research Roundup: Long-lasting pills, HIV testing, and starving bacteria of iron

Written by Kat Kelley / GHTC
Read time:
Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Medical School have designed a star-shaped pill that releases medicines over the course of two weeks. The long-acting pill has six arms that can be folded into a capsule. Once the capsule reaches the stomach, its outer layer is dissolved, causing the six arms to pop out. Due to its size, the expanded pill is able to remain in the stomach until its arms detach and are digested one by one. The research team used the antimalarial ivermectin to test this delivery system in pigs. The medicine was continually released for two weeks—an impressive feat as oral medicines rarely last longer than a day. Long-acting medicines can significantly improve adherence to complicated treatment regimens. The researchers are now using the platform to develop drugs for neuropsychiatric disorders, HIV and AIDS, diabetes, and epilepsy. Someday soon, one drop of blood and a USB stick could be all that’s required to determine a patient’s HIV viral load. The system uses an electronic chip to detect the virus and transform it into an electronic signal, which is then picked up by the USB, enabling users to access their results off by computer. The device was used to evaluate nearly 1,000 blood samples and proved to be accurate 95 percent of the time, providing results in 21 minutes on average. Current techniques to assess viral load take three days. Patients in remote areas often have to wait much longer because their samples must be transported to laboratories. The HIV virus can develop resistance to antiretroviral treatment, resulting in increasing levels of the virus in the blood. Patients could use this tool to regularly monitor their viral load, ensuring early detection of resistance. During infection, bacteria deploy minute molecules—siderophores—to steal iron from human cells. Microbes need iron to reproduce and interfering with this process could debilitate bacteria, preventing infection. Scientists have sought to develop vaccines that train the immune system to respond to the presence of siderophores; however, the molecules are too small to prompt an adequate immune response. Now, two independent groups of researchers have demonstrated that attaching siderophores to large proteins boosts the immune response. One team used siderophores from the strain of E. coli that causes urinary tract infections, while the other used the strain of Salmonella that causes food poisoning. Both teams vaccinated mice and then exposed them to the bacteria several weeks later. While neither vaccine provided complete protection, infections were much less severe in vaccinated mice. Mice that were vaccinated against E. coli had one-tenth the bacterial load in their urine and kidneys and less inflammation in their kidneys and bladders. The Salmonella-based vaccine triggered the production of antibodies against the siderophores, resulting in a bacterial load 20,000-fold fewer in vaccinated mice.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
November 13, 2016

Research Roundup: Treating drug-resistant infections, Ebola virus mutations, and Zika vaccine clinical trials

Written by Kat Kelley / GHTC
Read time:
Researchers at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have developed a test that can rapidly screen chemical compounds for their ability to treat drug-resistant infections. The team at NIH has already put the test to use, evaluating approved medicines, promising compounds, and drug combinations against common drug-resistant bacteria. After screening an estimated 4,000 drugs and compounds, the researchers identified 25 that effectively killed drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in the lab, including not only antibiotics, but also antifungals, antivirals, antiseptics, and even anticancer medicines. The test has also revealed three drug cocktails—each comprised of three different medicines—that can effectively treat ten common multidrug-resistant bacteria. These findings will enable clinicians to prescribe drug combinations with near certainty that they will treat a drug-resistant infection without waiting on lab results. While the tool is not yet commercialized, it can be mobilized to rapidly respond to emerging drug-resistant infections. A new study has revealed that during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the virus evolved, enhancing its ability to infect humans. Previously, Ebola was thought by many scientists to be relatively static; however, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Medical School and University of Nottingham have independently identified a mutation in the Ebola genome—A82V—that appeared during the outbreak and could have made the virus two to four times more virulent. The mutation affects the cells on the surface of the virus that are responsible for infiltrating a host’s cells. For viral cells, shape matters, as it enables them to latch onto host cells like a key in a lock. The researchers suspect that A82V adjusts the shape of these surface proteins, allowing them to better fit into human cells. The mutation also enhances the virus’ ability to infect the cells of chimps and monkeys, while hampering its ability to infect bats, dogs, cats, rats, and mice. The team also discovered that patients with the new, mutated strain of Ebola were 27 percent more likely to die. Further research is needed to confirm this finding. Last week, the NIH and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) initiated clinical trials of an experimental Zika vaccine—the first of five phase 1 trials evaluating the vaccine. The vaccine platform was first used by WRAIR in developing a vaccine against Japanese encephalitis, a fellow flavivirus. The Zika Purified Inactivated Virus (ZPIV) contains complete, inactivated virus particles that will not cause disease but train the immune system to recognize and mount a robust response to the Zika virus. In preclinical trials, the vaccine candidate successfully induced an immune response and protected animals against the virus. The five phase 1 clinical trials will test the vaccine compared to placebos in different doses and schedules, as well as in different populations, including individuals previously exposed to flaviviruses (including Zika, yellow fever, dengue, Japanese encephalitis, and West Nile) and dengue, individuals who have received yellow fever or Japanese encephalitis vaccines, and those who have received the NIH’s experimental DNA-based Zika vaccine.