Breakthroughs Blog: Access

For the second time, the World Health Assembly took place in the midst of an ongoing pandemic that is widening health inequities across and within regions. More than a year after the first wave of the pandemic, health systems in many parts of the world continue to battle waves of infection amid shortages of oxygen, vaccines, and health care workers. Yet among the numerous challenges posed by the pandemic, there were positive signals that with coordinated and focused action, health innovation in record pace is possible, particularly if that action can be built on a firm foundation of existing research and development (R&D). Our next challenge—as we continue the battle against COVID-19 and other health threats—is to channel similar coordinated, focused action to ensure the benefits of innovation are distributed equally across both geography and gender. What happens when years of existing research systematically exclude certain populations, denying them or delaying access to the benefits of health innovation? How can we address the underlying causes and accelerate shifts to make clinical research more inclusive? A recent side event at the 74th World Health Assembly, co-organized by Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung, Global Health Technologies Coalition, and Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), explored the above questions by highlighting the specific issue of gender inequity in health innovation. The panelists at the event discussed how gender biases have resulted in women’s underrepresentation in preclinical and clinical research, leading to downstream gaps in therapeutic options for them. Though gender inequity in health innovation is not limited to malaria, this article builds upon MMV’s presentation at the event, focusing on gender equity in malaria R&D to meet unmet needs. Unlike COVID-19, malaria is a disease that we have known for centuries. Despite the vast amount of scientific and epidemiological knowledge on malaria, a quick glance at the historical trajectory of malaria research reveals that it has been embedded in a larger context of gender bias in medical research. During the clinical development of most new medicines, including antimalarial drugs, pregnant people are actively excluded from trials and, if pregnancy occurs during the trial, treatment is discontinued and follow-up on the pregnancy outcomes is ensured. While this practice aims to protect the pregnant person and the fetus, it also prevents the generation of data and in doing so it has created knowledge gaps in the treatment of malaria in pregnant people. In addition to delaying the benefits of new treatments to these populations, the knowledge gaps also hinder the creation and implementation of gender-sensitive policies to fight the disease.Malaria in pregnancy, and more broadly in people of reproductive potential, remains a major public health challenge today. The World Health Organization estimates that 12 million pregnancies are at risk annually, resulting in nearly 822,000 children being born with low birth weight. Though preventive tools like vector control (for example insecticide-treated bednets and indoor residual spraying) and intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy exist, there are very few treatment options for pregnant and lactating people in their first trimester. The longer we wait to change our course, not only do we risk losing thousands of pregnant people and babies to a treatable disease, but we also widen the existing knowledge gaps that urgently need to be bridged. In other words, if we delay the process of integrating a gender lens as an essential element of the drug development process, the journey to catch up will be steep and could jeopardize efforts to eliminate and eradicate malaria. Fortunately, there is a growing determination within the malaria community to rectify gender-related data gaps. At MMV, we are doing so through our Malaria in Mothers and Babies (MiMBa) strategy, which aims to systematically prioritize and address the needs of pregnant people and newborns, right from target product profiling at the outset of drug development through to ensuring a stable supply of recommended medicines to treat and protect these populations from malaria. In one example, recognizing the lack of safety and tolerability data for antimalarials used during pregnancy, we have teamed up with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine to develop a pregnancy registry to help fill the data gaps with the objective of eventually establishing standard protocols in the treatment of malaria during pregnancy in all endemic regions.Other organizations, like the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network, are building online repositories of published and unpublished literature on malaria in pregnancy, contributing to the methodical archiving of data on this topic. Furthermore, awareness campaigns like “Zero malaria starts with me” are also placing a strong focus on the need for inclusive innovation to treat malaria in pregnancy.In an important step forward, high-level decision-making bodies like the G7 are also taking note of this issue. We welcome the G7 health ministers’ Therapeutics and Vaccines Clinical Trials Charter to pave the way for “stronger collaboration in large-scale international trials to enable greater diversity of participants, including pregnant people and children.” This is an important step forward toward more equitable clinical research.While great strides are being made in advancing health innovation to better represent and account for the needs of all genders in health care, much critical work remains to be done. Decades of exclusion from clinical research will not disappear overnight. The need of the hour is gender mainstreaming supported by significant investments into R&D, as well as moving policymaking forward, to ensure a fairer and more inclusive health care system for all. Most importantly, while organizations like MMV commit to extend the benefits of our innovation equitably to all populations affected by malaria, we firmly believe that the road to achieving gender equity in clinical research will be paved by the inclusion and support of patients, health workers, researchers, policymakers, as well as the champions and advocates for health equity in the global health system. Much like for the COVID-19 pandemic, catalyzing this transition to a gender-sensitive malaria eradication strategy will require focused and coordinated action and all voices have a part to play.

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign-up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email. Interim data from the phase 1/2a clinical trial of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine candidate indicates the single-dose shot induced an immune response and was generally well-tolerated among trial participants aged 18 to 55. Neutralizing antibodies against COVID-19 were observed in more than 90 percent of volunteers 29 days post-vaccination and in 100 percent of volunteers 57 days post-vaccination. The vaccine—the furthest along candidate that only requires one dose—was developed by Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of J&J using its AdVac vaccine platform, which was also used to develop Janssen’s Ebola vaccine as well as investigational Zika, RSV, and HIV vaccine candidates. The company expects to release data on participants over the age of 65 as well as results from its phase 3 trial later this month, after which it would submit applications for authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration and regulatory bodies globally.The African Union (AU) has secured provisional commitments to procure around 270 million COVID-19 vaccine doses, 50 million of which would be available before April 2021. The doses—to be supplied by Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and J&J—will be distributed among the AU’s 55 member states in pursuit of achieving herd immunity across the content. The new agreements are independent from doses secured through the COVAX Facility, a global mechanism to speed up development, manufacturing, and equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, which has pledged to procure and supply vaccines for about 20 percent of each participating country’s population. The continent’s vaccine strategic plan entails vaccinating at least 60 percent of its 1.2 billion individuals, according to the director of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.As the first COVID-19 vaccines—from Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca—are manufactured and distributed around the world, experts say there will still be plenty of need for follow-up products in the fight against the pandemic. While current vaccine launches provide hope for an end to the “acute phase of the pandemic,” longer-term management of the disease will require a larger arsenal of technologies. The next generation of vaccines could also offer advantages to the fight that the first round could not, including potential for single doses, easier mass manufacturing ability, or less rigid temperate requirements. There are currently at least 20 COVID-19 vaccine candidates in the final phase of clinical trials and dozens more in preclinical and early clinical stages.

2021 is shaping up to be an extraordinarily consequential year for US policy for global health and medical research, as a new presidential administration and Congress take charge against the backdrop of a global pandemic that has killed 1.6 million people worldwide and set back decades of progress in global health. As 2021 begins, here are some of the top policy issues GHTC will be tracking: 1. Will the United States remain missing in action on the global COVID-19 response or finally step up? Global health advocates spent much of last year repeating the aphorisms “no one is safe until everyone is safe” and “a global crisis requires a global response”—which seemingly fell on the deaf ears of a Congress and administration consumed by the magnitude of the COVID-19 crisis within our own borders. Though Congress last year appropriated roughly US$2 trillion in emergency funding to respond to the pandemic, plus that much more in loans and tax relief, less than one-half of 1 percent of that funding was earmarked to support the international response—marking a major departure from the US government’s approach in past global health emergencies like Zika and Ebola, when it stepped up with both resources and global leadership.  While the $4 billion in funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, was a bright spot in the fifth emergency supplemental funding package passed at the end of December, it only meets a fraction of the interconnected needs for a strong global response to this global health emergency. As a new administration and Congress take the helm later this month, advocates are continuing to push for $20 billion in emergency funding for the global COVID-19 response. Within this are specific asks for the United States to join and contribute to the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) and its lead partners, including the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and for Congress to resource the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to advance COVID-19 innovations designed for low-resource settings. With greater political support for these proposals coming from the Democrat-controlled House than the now Republican-controlled Senate, future prospects may depend as much on the outcome of today’s Senate runoffs in Georgia as the hard work of advocates. Yet, beyond these budget battles, the incoming Biden-Harris administration can pursue other direct means to support the international response, including leveraging existing efforts like Operation Warp Speed to continue to advance next-generation tools suited for the needs of low-resource settings and donating any excess vaccines globally once immediate US needs are met. [Editor's update: On January 20, the Biden-Harris Administration announced that the United States would join ACT-A. The administration also outlined a proposal for a sixth emergency supplemental package that includes $11 billion in funding to support the international response to COVID-19 and mitigate the pandemic's impact on global health, though it will ultimately depend on Congress as to whether the plan will move forward. The two Democratic Party candidates, Jon Ossoff and Rev. Raphael Warnock, won the Georgia runoffs giving Democrats functional control of the Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris as a tie-breaking vote.] 2. Will we recommit to multilateralism—and fund it? The last four years have been a dark era in US multilateral engagement, punctuated most conspicuously by the Trump administration’s move last July to initiate US withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). While the Biden-Harris administration has thankfully pledged on day one to end this withdrawal, this is only the first step in rebuilding US credibility on the global stage and advancing meaningful multilateral reforms. As COVID-19 has shown, much work needs to be done to build a smarter, more responsive international system for public health and emergency preparedness, including for research and development (R&D). We hope that the Biden-Harris administration will work alongside allies now leading these processes and signal strong support for reform efforts. In addition to pushing for the US government to re-engage with WHO—and fulfill outstanding financial obligations—and join ACT-A efforts, GHTC is also calling for the United States to formally join CEPI via a $200 million annual commitment and work alongside our partner countries in the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) to revamp GHSA’s Workforce Development & Medical Countermeasures Action Package to address gaps in R&D capacity. [Editor's update: On January 20, the Biden-Harris Administration sent a letter to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres ending US withdrawal from WHO.] 3. Will we pursue and finance a “build back better” agenda for global health?  The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how our nation has woefully underinvested in our domestic and global health infrastructure. And while the burden and death toll of COVID-19 is staggering on its own, the full impact of the pandemic is coming into clearer view. Due to pandemic-related disruptions, health programs worldwide have faced challenges sustaining routine immunization programs and treatment services for HIV and tuberculosis, which could cause millions more deaths, and many health researchers have had to pause promising projects. The latter is a key finding from a report GHTC released last month which found the global health R&D sector is being weakened by pandemic pressures that are diverting funding and expertise away from other long-standing threats, multiplying costs for supplies and operations, and putting clinical trials and other scientific endeavors worldwide on indefinite hold. Reflecting on this devastation, it’s clear that an “appropriations as usual” approach will no longer suffice. After years of largely flat-funding health agencies and programs like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USAID Global Health Programs, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Congress must take bold action to boost their budgets—and sustain strong growth at the National Institutes of Health—to ensure these programs have the resources needed to fulfill their important mandates and help their implementing partners restart activities and mitigate added costs and challenges from the pandemic. 4. Will the incoming administration reinvigorate and tap USAID capabilities after four years of neglect? USAID has faced a tumultuous last four years, as the Trump administration has repeatedly sought to slash the agency’s budget and instill controversial appointees. And when President Trump mobilized his administration’s pandemic response infrastructure for COVID-19, he exposed his ignorance of the agency’s value once again. The White House did not include the USAID administrator—the head of the US agency foremost charged with advancing global health—on the Coronavirus Task Force, and it floated proposals to shift US leadership of global pandemic preparedness and response activities away from the agency. Meanwhile, Congress provided USAID with minimal emergency funding to support partner countries in responding to the pandemic, stretching already thin global health programs. Despite taking these bruises, USAID, with its expansive on-the-ground presence worldwide, continues to possess unique capabilities and expertise in global health that will be vital for the incoming Biden-Harris administration to tap and reinvigorate as it seeks to end this pandemic—while also combating long-standing and future health threats. One area the agency has rich expertise in is developing and adapting health technologies for use in low-resource settings where barriers like lack of reliable cold chains or laboratory capacity can necessitate different types of tools. To leverage this expertise and bolster the agency’s leadership in this arena, GHTC is calling for the creation of a Chief Science and Product Development Officer role to coordinate and elevate best practices across the agency’s health area–specific innovation programming and the establishment of a new USAID Global Health Security Grand Challenge program to rapidly elevate and advance innovation solutions for these settings. [Editor's update: The Biden-Harris Administration has nominated Amb. Samantha Powers for the position of USAID Administrator and announced that the USAID Administrator position will be elevated as a member of the National Security Council.] 5. Will we proactively bolster BARDA’s role in pandemic preparedness in COVID-19’s wake? BARDA entered 2020 as a relatively obscure federal agency responsible for developing medical countermeasures against health threats and ended it as a household name entrusted with an influx of COVID-19 emergency funding 42 times the size of its annual appropriated budget—as the agency became a key player in the US government’s ambitious Operation Warp Speed. Prior to the emergence of COVID-19, GHTC had pushed unsuccessfully for Congress to provide dedicated funding for BARDA to grow its R&D activities for naturally occurring health threats, including emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), antimicrobial resistance, and pandemic influenza, recognizing the real and present danger they pose alongside that of bioterror and man-made threats which precipitated the agency’s founding in the wake of the anthrax attacks of 2001 and have remained its historic focus since then. While the agency has been previously engaged in advancing products for EIDs, including Ebola and Zika, much of its funding to do so has come through emergency funding packages, rather than through annualized, sustained funding. This “boom and bust” cycle of Congress providing funding to the agency only after a crisis hits is not a good recipe for improving epidemic preparedness and must change. In the wake of COVID-19, GHTC is continuing to push for a permanent funding line, with an annual appropriation of $300 million, to enable BARDA’s sustained work on a range of EIDs and other naturally occurring health threats. GHTC is also advocating for the agency to place greater priority on ensuring, where possible, that the products it funds are designed to be readily deployable in low-resource and austere settings—recognizing we can’t prevent and end epidemics and pandemics unless we can ensure lifesaving tools can reach everyone, in every corner of America and the world. 6. How do we harness lessons learned to supercharge a new era of innovation? As the first COVID-19 vaccines are being delivered to health workers across our country, much is being written about this historic achievement and the power of science: just 11 months after scientists got their hands on the genetic sequence of the virus, we now have two effective vaccines approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for emergency use—a truly staggering achievement. Backed by considerable resources and building on the backbone of decades of investment in HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious disease research, scientists and product developers have poured their energy into fighting COVID-19, and in doing so, they have leapfrogged science to incorporate emerging approaches like mRNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, novel clinical trial designs, and more that could revolutionize the fight against other global health challenges. While there are many R&D lessons yet to be gleaned from this crisis, two already stand out: 1) With adequate resources and political will, science can solve health challenges that once appeared insurmountable, and 2) When governments pursue and finance product development with a clear end-to-end plan in mind—working in partnership with product developers to advance products each step of the way from early research through product procurement—we can achieve progress at speeds previously unimaginable.  It is our hope US policymakers will embrace these lessons learned in structuring and financing global health research efforts so we can supercharge a new golden era of global health innovation.

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign-up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate, following a vote by the agency’s independent advisory panel last Thursday recommending authorization. Results from the vaccine’s phase 3 clinical trial released in late November showed 95 percent efficacy of the two-dose regimen, leading the companies to submit the candidate to regulatory bodies around the world. The candidate, the first mRNA-based vaccine ever to receive regulatory authorization, is the first COVID-19 vaccine to receive a green light in the United States and has also been authorized in the United Kingdom, Canada, and several other countries. The EUA allows the United States to begin vaccinating people 16 years of age and older in a massive distribution effort prioritizing health care personnel and residents and staff of long-term care facilities.As COVID-19 vaccine approval and rollout becomes a reality, a group of global health organizations is warning that low-income countries will face extreme challenges with vaccine access due to high-income countries securing a vast majority of the global vaccine supply through advance purchase deals with vaccine developers. Data on these agreements and the current vaccine pipeline indicates that nearly 70 low- and middle-income countries will be only able to vaccinate 10 percent of their populations against COVID-19 in the next year. A recent study also outlines the confirmed purchases of at least 6.8 billion doses by primarily high-income countries, creating a risk that lower-income countries will be forced to wait for doses, deepening existing inequities and furthering economic damages. Low-income countries will likely be reliant on doses provided through the COVAX Facility, a global mechanism to speed up development, manufacturing, and equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines—an initiative researchers say is being undermined by these unequal vaccine deals.Efforts to develop COVID-19 treatments are moving forward as companies look to add to the arsenal of therapeutics helping to minimize the effects of COVID-19 illness. Since the onset of the pandemic, FDA has authorized a few treatment options, including remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and monoclonal antibodies. Other therapeutics remain under development, including an apelin agonist peptide treatment developed by CohBar, which recently demonstrated efficacy in preclinical models to treat acute respiratory distress, and Sorrento Therapeutics’ intravenous STI-2020, which recently received FDA clearance to begin phase 1 trials as a potential early treatment for COVID-19 outpatients with mild symptoms. Both developers plan to accumulate further safety and efficacy data of the therapeutics in the upcoming months.