Breakthroughs Blog: SDGs

In this post, Amie Batson, MBA—chief strategy officer at GHTC member PATH—discusses a new PATH-led initiative to identify and showcase lifesaving innovations with the promise to transform global health by 2030 and offers insights into what it will take to accelerate the impact of innovation. This post originally appeared in the Innovation Countdown 2030 Report: Reimagining Global Health. What if the solutions to the greatest health challenges of our time were within reach? Imagine if the world came together around those solutions and worked to accelerate the ones with the most potential to transform health. How might the world source, assess, finance, and coordinate investment in the highest-impact innovations and dismantle the barriers that keep them from reaching the very people who need them most? This is the intriguing premise behind the PATH-led Innovation Countdown 2030 (IC2030) initiative. With support from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US Agency for International Development, we set out to identify, evaluate, and showcase health technologies and interventions with great promise to accelerate progress toward solving the world’s most urgent health issues. We turned to experts and innovators all over the globe, crowdsourcing transformative ideas and innovations that could dramatically increase the affordability, accessibility, or effectiveness of health care compared to the current standard of care. Reimagining Global Health, the inaugural report of the IC2030 initiative, features 30 innovations that experts believe could quicken the pace of progress toward the health targets in the proposed UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), along with commentaries from health, technology, and business leaders. These 30 innovations are presented in four categories mapped to the proposed health targets: maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH); infectious diseases, including malaria, HIV and AIDS, and tuberculosis (TB); reproductive health; and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease. We cast a wide net in our search because innovation is truly diverse and global. Our call for nominations brought in more than 500 ideas submitted by people in nearly 50 countries across five platforms: devices; diagnostics; drugs and therapeutics; systems and services, including digital health; and vaccines. We then tapped more than 60 health experts to evaluate and rank those innovations, selecting the final set featured here. For a detailed look at our methodology, please see pages 37–41 of the Reimagining Global Health report. Four strategies to accelerate the impact of innovation Our list of 30 promising innovations and our dialogue with experts and innovators around the world offer important insights into what it will take to harness the power of innovation to save lives. 1. Tap and support innovation wherever it occurs. Innovators are everywhere, not just in well-funded labs and technology companies in wealthy nations. Today’s innovation ecosystem is diffuse, with smart ideas coming from every corner of the globe and across every sector and discipline. The world increasingly sees the importance of user-centric solutions that are demand-driven, relevant, and affordable. The opportunities for accelerating innovation—wherever it comes from—have never been greater, empowered by digital platforms where new ideas, data, and approaches can be shared, developed, and deployed. Our crowdsourcing approach for gathering innovations is one example of the new tools that are redefining health innovation. Nearly 30 percent of the 500-plus submissions received by IC2030 came from people in low- and middle-income countries, giving voice to their growing role in health innovation. There were many more promising ideas than we could feature in this report. Strengthening the capacity of low- and middle-income countries to identify, develop, adapt, produce, regulate, assess, and share innovations is critical for a robust innovation pipeline. Investments in countries’ innovation ecosystems will catalyze better overall global health while ensuring that innovations are appropriate for low-resource markets and local contexts and cultures. Innovators with direct experience working with limited resources may be the best source for frugal innovations—cost-effective solutions to address the needs of the poor, wherever they live. 2. Assess and advance innovations that deliver the most health for the money. Rigorous and transparent assessment of an innovation’s health impact, market size, and technological feasibility compared to alternatives in the pipeline is important for informing decisions about where to invest precious health resources. Low- and middle-income country governments are requesting assistance in evaluating the potential health and economic value of introducing one innovation versus another amid a burgeoning supply of new tools and interventions. Investors are also demanding more and better data on which to base investment decisions. However, comparing innovations across diseases and conditions is a challenge. Health experts frequently focus on specific conditions and make decisions with a single health outcome in mind. A key feature of IC2030 is the health and cost impact modeling process we developed to quantify lives saved, cases of disease averted, and costs for a subset of MNCH innovations. This model could provide a common framework to assess innovations with the greatest potential to address the SDG health targets. Our impact modeling results for select maternal, newborn, and child health innovations are featured on pages 13–19 of the Reimagining Global Health report. The data provide new insights into prioritizing global health investments for greatest impact. For example, we found that new tools for community-level water treatment to prevent diarrheal disease and the scale-up of a low-cost drug to prevent newborn infections could save more lives over the next 15 years compared to other innovations we modeled. Measuring the impact of crosscutting innovations is equally important. These health systems and platform innovations, including digital tools and broad diagnostics, have the potential to address multiple SDG health targets simultaneously. About one in five of the innovations submitted to IC2030 was crosscutting in nature. Yet assessing their impact is particularly challenging because of the complexity of linking multiple health outcomes to the foundational structure of the health system that supports them. In this first year of IC2030, we did not systematically evaluate crosscutting innovations, but they will be a focus going forward. New assessment tools and more comparable, comprehensive, and reliable financial and technical data are critical to help spotlight and advance innovations with particular promise that might otherwise be overlooked. A clear and rigorous framework to gauge the best value for money in a range of low- and middle-income settings is needed to inform national and subnational purchasing decisions and the decisions of those purchasing on behalf of countries. This will also help innovation investors more accurately assess potential impact, markets, and revenue flows. Zeroing in on health solutions that offer the greatest value for money is the essential next step in reaching the millions of people still waiting to share in the gains of our progress. 3. Develop new financing mechanisms for global health innovation. The pool of public and private funds to invest in health innovations is large and evolving. Funds from traditional R&D and development donors—typically dedicated public funds from wealthy countries—are being augmented by resources from philanthropies, social impact investors, private-sector mechanisms, and domestic sources. This new mix of innovation funding creates both opportunities and challenges. Domestic funding to introduce and scale up health innovations is becoming central to innovation funding. As low- and middle-income economies grow and countries graduate from aid, they are expected to finance their own health expenditures, creating new markets for affordable health tools and interventions. Sustainable financing of innovation will depend on the decisions of domestic stakeholders, including governments, insurance entities, corporations, and individuals. As more viable markets emerge, we will see a rebalancing of innovation from being primarily supply-side driven by donors and the R&D community to being more demand-side driven by countries and markets. Supporting country decision-makers to buy or, in the case of insurance mechanisms, cover or reimburse cost-effective health innovations must be at the heart of a new and improved financing model. Global funding mechanisms, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the new Global Financing Facility at the World Bank, may be well-positioned to act as intermediaries, as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, currently does for vaccines. These mechanisms can increase the certainty that funds will be readily available to purchase high-priority innovations if countries demand them. To play this role, they will need a window into the innovation pipeline and a means of engaging with eligible governments to identify high-impact innovations. The next generation of health financing mechanisms must also be responsive to the increasing requirements of social impact and private investors who base their investment decisions on not only the potential health impact of an innovation but also its probable market in low- and middle-income countries. While traditional funders have always understood the importance of having a clear “line-of-sight” to the market, it was often discounted. The assumption has been that if an innovation demonstrated significant public health value, a donor would eventually support it. New financing mechanisms must spotlight and bridge the critical links between R&D decisions, market uptake, and health impact. Innovators will respond to incentives that encourage them to maintain a focus on the market from the beginning of the development process to ensure the creation of sustainable and affordable innovations. New financing mechanisms must also provide more efficient and effective models for making and executing investment decisions. Over the past decade, the evolving spectrum of innovation funders has led to increasing fragmentation of investment decisions and growing transaction costs. Each investor—whether a public agency representative, a social impact investor, or a minister of health—brings a unique mix of risk tolerance, due diligence processes, data sources, expected returns, and interest in specific platforms, geographies, or health areas. For any investor, the difficulty and risk of investing alone is high, but today, the transaction cost of coordinating decisions and investment can be even higher. Global health investment funds try to address this challenge but require all investors to align on risk/reward preferences. The growing diversity of funders, while currently a challenge, has the potential to be a benefit if investors can leverage their different interests and risk tolerance. If actively coordinated, mixed sources of funding can be structured to finance different stages in the innovation cycle with a focus on the market. This means recognizing the growing role of purchasers in establishing a market, as well as finding new ways to align the decisions of investors and purchasers. All parties would make better decisions if they knew, and could count on, what others were doing. 4. Coordinate investments to ensure a strategic approach to health innovation. Coordinated investments in innovations across the continuum of care, including prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and disease management, have the potential to ensure a comprehensive suite of health tools and services designed for the greatest possible impact. The proposed SDGs provide the opportunity for investors to work toward shared health targets and better coordination in how they source, assess, and invest in innovations that achieve those targets. Yet we found potential inefficiencies in investment approaches that may underscore the current lack of coordination. In certain health areas, for example, we received nominations for multiple devices all taking a similar approach to address the same health condition. While competition might result in better tools at better prices, it also raises the question of whether donors are aware of what others are investing in and whether scarce resources could be more strategically targeted. In maternal health, we received many submissions for diagnostics to predict and detect preeclampsia/eclampsia—the second leading cause of maternal mortality—but few innovations for the treatment of these life-threatening conditions. In many low-resource settings, the existing treatment, magnesium sulfate, is underused, incorrectly administered, or unavailable. Diagnostics will have limited value unless innovations in new treatments and delivery systems are developed in parallel. A broader understanding of where investments in innovation are high—or very low—is also warranted. NCDs now account for about two-thirds of global deaths, yet we received very few innovation nominations. Donors may assume others are funding NCD innovations while they focus on infectious diseases. Will they be surprised when they pivot to NCDs and discover the lack of appropriate innovations for people in low-resource settings? Could investments in preventive innovations today allow countries to effectively leapfrog developed nations and avoid creating the huge treatment burdens associated with NCDs? Conclusion The robust and growing innovation pipeline presents an exciting opportunity to accelerate high-impact solutions that can create better health and opportunity for all. Ensuring the best ideas are surfaced—wherever they come from—is the first critical step we must take to deliver on the promise of the SDG health targets. This should include investing in the innovation ecosystem in low-resource countries to enable local entrepreneurs to develop, produce, and share their ideas. It also means using new crowdsourcing tools to gather ideas and data visualization to make the comprehensive pipeline more visible to national and global investors, policymakers, and innovators. Developing and adopting assessment methodologies that provide common, consistent, and comparable evaluations of innovations is the second step. Countries are in great need of health technology assessment tools that allow governments and insurance entities to decide which of the many innovations available today and in the future should be procured, covered, and reimbursed. These tools also will improve the quality of market estimates, one of the most critical and yet weakest components of innovation assessment for all investors. The third step is to develop innovative financing mechanisms that both recognize the growing importance of domestic finance in determining markets in low- and middle-income countries and benefit from the growing diversity of investors. Financiers have the potential to leverage their investments by aligning with other funders while maintaining a strategic focus on the market. Aligned investment across the different stages of the innovation cycle, from development to production, commercialization, purchase, and wide-scale use, has the potential to dramatically accelerate our progress. The fourth step may be the most essential—coordinating the resources and attention of investors, innovators, and policymakers on innovations with the greatest potential value for money. Our progress depends on decision-makers sharing information to ensure that collectively, the world is investing in the portfolio of innovations that will allow us to achieve our shared goals embodied in the SDGs. Innovation is the key to sustainable health impact. But innovation isn’t a random set of ideas and inventions. High-impact innovation is more likely to result from the kind of sourcing, assessment, financing, and coordination described above. It is our hope that one or more of the innovations highlighted in this report will become a game-changer for global health over the next 15 years. But beyond the success of any single innovation, we hope IC2030 will be a platform to catalyze discussion, collaboration, investment, and momentum toward the day when everyone has an equal chance for a healthy life. Photo: PATH/Gabe Bienczycki.

Dr Margaret Chan, WHO director-general opens the assembly. Photo: WHO The 68th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva wrapped up last week after addressing several items that will shape the next few years of global health innovation. While we’re very excited by the progress made, much hinges on the connections between this year’s assembly decisions, the finalization of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and next year’s WHA, which will likely have an even greater focus on global health research and development (R&D). Here are some highlights from the last two weeks: First, there were several decisions that will impact the work of the entire global health community: WHO budget increase approved Member states approved WHO’s proposed program budget for 2016-17, increasing the biennial budget by US$236 million—a five percent increase from the previous cycle. The renewed push for malaria elimination through the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria was mentioned as one of the reasons behind the funding increase. Work on non-State actors’ engagement framework continues The Assembly also welcomed a report on progress of a draft framework for engagement with non-State actors—including nongovernmental organizations, private-sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions—noting that it wishes to finalize the framework by the next WHA. Delegates requested that the director-general convene an intergovernmental meeting as soon as possible and submit a finalized draft for adoption at next year’s WHA, as well as submit a register of non-State actors. Delegates acknowledged the importance of WHO engaging with non-State actors, which may facilitate greater alliances between WHO and nonprofit product development organizations, as well as global health innovation advocacy groups. It was also a big week for global health innovation: Pooled R&D fund, CEWG recommendations progress WHO delegates consider draft resolutions. Photo: Pierre Albouy/WHO Member states officially noted a report outlining the role the WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases would play in hosting and managing a pooled R&D fund. The fund, which will be financed by voluntary contributions, is intended to support R&D for new technologies to meet the needs of low- and middle-income countries. Priorities areas for the fund will be identified by the WHO Global Health Research Observatory, which will be formally launched in January 2016. It remains to be seen how the structure of the observatory will ultimately be implemented, and how that will impact the work of the pooled fund. The pooled fund and observatory were developed as a result of recommendations from a 2012 report by the WHO Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination (CEWG) which was looking for ways to fund R&D for and achieve access to treatments and technologies for diseases predominantly impacting the poor. To demystify this conversation, GHTC and the Council on Health Research for Development cosponsored a live event and webinar at WHA that examined approaches to incentivizing global health R&D and ensuring access to technologies. The discussion featured panelists from PATH, Médecins Sans Frontières, Cipla, and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The webinar is available on demand here. Timeframe for global strategy on public health, innovation, and intellectual property extended Member states also agreed to extend the timeframe for action on The Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (GSPA) from 2015 to 2022. The GSPA was adopted by members in 2008 “to promote new thinking on innovation and access to medicines.” The agreement also extends the timeframe of an overall program review of the global strategy on its achievement, remaining challenges, and recommendations on the way forward. A panel of experts to conduct the evaluation will not be established until early 2017, with their report to be presented at the 71st WHA in 2018. WHO endorses Global Vaccine Action plan which includes support for R&D During discussion around the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), member states approved a resolution that includes language directed at strengthening WHO’s prequalification program, which provides tentative evaluation of new vaccines and medicines. The resolution also included a call for increased capacity-building for R&D, technology transfer, and other elements of vaccine development. Ebola epidemic prompts creation of new emergency response capabilities, greater emphasis on development of new technologies As the Ebola outbreak in West Africa winds down, WHO’s efforts and preparedness for future health emergencies was a hot topic at the Assembly. Delegates welcomed WHO's commitment to make important changes in its emergency response work. Through an approved resolution, WHO will establish a new emergency response capability based on all-hazards preparedness with an emphasis on adaptability, flexibility, accountability, humanitarian principles, predictability, opportunity and country ownership. WHO also plans to establish a contingency fund of $100 million to finance emergency field operations for up to three months. R&D language was also included in the resolution, which supports the development of a ‘blueprint’ for accelerating R&D in epidemics or health emergencies where few or no technological solutions exist. WHO approves global malaria strategy which emphasizes importance of research and innovation Delegates showing support for the proceedings. Photo: WHO Member states approved the Global Technical Strategy for Malaria, which aims to eliminate malaria in at least 35 countries by 2030. The strategy emphasizes the importance of research and innovation, and the need for political commitment, sustainable financing, strong health systems, and collaboration across different sectors. Dr. Pedro Alonso, head of the Global Malaria Program, cited R&D as a necessary endeavor to reach the lofty elimination goals outlined in the strategy.WHO adopts global plan to combat antimicrobial resistance   A key item under discussion by governments was the draft WHO Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) which was approve by member states. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, opened the Assembly by calling AMR "an issue of crucial importance to humankind." Germany has made AMR a key priority during their current chairmanship of the G7. The plan calls for countries to put in place by 2017 systems to monitor drug resistance. It also calls for reductions in overuse of antibiotics and for more investment in new drugs and other health technologies. GHTC member RESULTS, along with the Stop TB Partnership and Global Health Advocates, highlighted the need for drug-resistant tuberculosis to be central to the AMR Global Action Plan throughout the Assembly, and the Global Health Council and Global Health Advocates France delivered a statement calling for drug-resistant TB to be central to the plan and included in the Communiqué of the G7 Summit.Role of Health in SDGs discussed As the finalization of the SDGs approaches this fall, the Assembly discussed the need to secure a strong role for health goals in the overarching framework, and adopted a resolution urging member states to emphasize, among other priorities, “medical products, vaccines and technologies.” Through the Global Health Council, GHTC presented a statement highlighting the need to include health innovation targets and indicators in the SDGs. Looking ahead to the 69th WHA: Several R&D topics to be revisited In comparison with last year’s WHA, this year’s agenda did not include as much substantive decision-making regarding global health R&D activities, such as the global health R&D observatory, the ongoing pilot demonstration projects, or the previously proposed R&D treaty. These topics will be revisited at the 69th WHA in 2016. Regulatory strengthening expected to be discussed We also expect that regulatory systems strengthening will be on the agenda in 2016, an area that is of interest to the US delegation in particular. Since the 2014 Ebola outbreak, interest has been revived in strengthening the involvement of stringent regulatory authorities, like the US Food and Drug Administration, in supporting quick review of emergency tools, as well as building capacity for regulation and increasing regulatory harmonization around the world. As you can see, it was a very busy few weeks! We’re pleased with the outcomes from the WHA, but also see a need to ensure that the important agreements and resolutions are carried forward by member state governments and partners. Hopefully with the upcoming final post-2015 discussions and the next WHO Executive Board meeting only six months away, we’ll see the momentum for global health R&D continue.

Trying to navigate and understand the post-2015 negotiations can be a challenge, so to help add some clarity, last week the Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC) convened a panel of experts to help explain the ongoing debates and where the negotiations stand and how health innovation is reflected in the agenda.Here are my seven takeaways from that discussion.1. There are still a lot of TBDsSix essential elements of the SDGs. Credit: UNAlthough we’re only five months away from September 2015 when the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be approved by United Nation (UN) member states, there is still much to be determined and worked out. While it’s expected that the goals and targets will look similar to those proposed by the Open Working Group (OWG)with some refinement of the targets, the process for determining the indicators has just begun and will likely continue through March 2016.While member states work to finalize the goals, targets, and indicators, countries are also discussing financing and means of implementation for the agenda and how to build an effective monitoring and accountability framework.2. The proposed SDG framework is comprehensive in a way the MDGs were notThe process for determining the SDGs was much more inclusive and consultative than the process for determining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). There were a range of opportunities for all member states, civil society representatives, nongovernmental organizations, other stakeholders, and even individuals to have their ideas and voice heard. The result is a proposed agenda that is much more comprehensive (and bigger) than the MDGs (17 goals and 169 targets in SDGs, compared to 8 goals and 21 targets in MDGs).This inclusive process has also produced an agenda that is supposed to be universal and apply to all nations, representing a major conceptual shift. Broadly speaking, the MDGs were 7 goals focused on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) implementing changes and an 8th goal focused on high-income countries (HICs) footing the bill. The SDGs are meant to be universal with all nations collectively responsible for their implementation and success. However, given that some nations have more capacity and means to contribute to implementation and some targets and indicators are more applicable to certain categories of nations, it’s not clear how this concept will actually be translated into action.3. The agenda will succeed or fail based on the strengths of implementationGetting the global community to agree on a set of development goals is only half the battle. Once the agenda is codified, it will be up to each nation to develop and implement policies that will help the agenda be financed and realized. Individual countries will have to find ways to take national priorities already set out for their country and ensure they can feed into the process and drive progress towards the goals. Central to the success of implementing the agenda will be having clear targets and strong indicators to measure progress towards them.4. How the world will pay for the agenda is an open questionPhoto: PATH/Gabe BienczyckiOne of the most daunting questions for the post-2015 agenda is how this expansive and ambitious agenda will be financed. Along with the process of defining the SDGs, there is a secondary track and set of intergovernmental negotiations looking at how to finance development through the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) in July. A schism has arisen between LMICs and HICs on how the FfD process integrates with the post-2015 process. Many HICs would like to see the FfD process focused on the means of implementation for the SDGs and see the outcomes integrated into the post-2015 agenda, while many LMICs would like it to remain a separate process.Given the universality of this agenda, one should expect financing discussions to look beyond traditional development assistance. Discussions will center on not just how much funding is needed to achieve the agenda, but also on how those funding flows should look different in the future than they do today including how traditional donor recipient nations, especially middle-income countries, can increase their own domestic contributions to development and how the public sector can work together with the private sector to catalyze private-sector investment and financing for development.5. Measuring and monitoring progress towards the SDGs will be an enormous challengeIn the MDGs, there were 50 indicators created to measure the 8 goals and 21 targets. Applying the same ratio, it would take an estimated 480 indicators to measure the 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs. Even if negotiators rely on crosscutting indicators that can measure multiple targets and manage to pare down the list to around 100, it will still be enormously difficult and costly for the national statistics agencies to monitor and measure. It’s not currently clear how this will be financed or carried out. Yet getting the monitoring and measuring right will be essential. To get where we want to be by 2030, the world will need to make sure we’re on the right track and meeting our commitments by 2020, but determining if we’re on the right track will require an effective monitoring and reporting framework.6. Health innovation is critical to achieving the SDGs but is not strongly reflected in the agendaPhoto: PATH/Patrick McKernImproving global health will be essential to achieve the overarching goal of sustainable economic development and poverty reduction. However, achieving many of the current SDG health targets—including ending the epidemic of HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; ending preventable deaths in children and newborns; and significantly reducing the number of women dying in childbirth—will be impossible without new tools and technologies. Yet the development of these new technologies will not happen automatically. Thus, it’s essential that the post-2015 agenda prioritize and acknowledge the importance of global health research and development (R&D).Unfortunately, as it stands, the OWG proposal only includes one specific target related to R&D of new health technologies to meet the health needs of developing countries—target 3.b—and some soft targets related to R&D and innovation under goals 9 and 17. Further, various proposals for indicators either ignore the 3.b health R&D target entirely, focus only on the access element of it, or propose a voluntary indicator to measure it. To achieve health for all at all ages by 2030, we’ll need to make sure the SDGs include feasible and appropriate indicators to measure progress on global health R&D at both the global and national levels.7. It’s on all of us to make sure the vision of the SDGs can become a realityWe all own this agenda, and we all have a role to play in implementing it. We must work to hold our national governments accountable for their commitments and also ask ourselves what we can do as individuals to make this vision a reality. What’s clear is business as usual won’t cut it. We must ask each sector and ourselves what we can do differently this time around to achieve the vision of the SDGs.To watch the full panel discussion and webinar on health innovation in the post-2015 agenda, click here.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. According to a recent study out of Oxford University, rapid evolution of the HIV virus is slowing the virus’s ability to cause AIDS. In this study of 2,000 women in South Africa and Botswana, researchers found that the HIV virus had evolved to adapt to a specific gene known as HLA-B*57, which provides some protective effect against HIV, slowing the progress to AIDS. As the virus has adapted to reduce this protective effect in individuals, the virus has also reduced its ability to replicate, making it less virulent over all. Last Thursday, the UN Secretary-General launched his synthesis report for the sustainable development goals. In this report, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed his support for the 17 goals and 160 targets proposed by the United Nations Open Working Group, despite concerns from some member states that the current list is too long. Of the 17 proposed goals, two contain targets related to the research and development of new technologies. Researchers are developing a powdered form of the measles vaccine which could make it easier and safer to deliver the vaccine to people in developing nations. The current FDA-approved measles vaccine is a live virus that has been freeze-dried into a powder, which requires reconstitution with water before being administered via syringe. The new vaccine under development is a powder that can be inhaled. This new formulation would eliminate the need for sterile water and needles, as well as cold-chain storage. A modified regimen of the HIV vaccine candidate RV144 was shown to be safe and capable of inducing a robust immune response in safety trials in South Africa. RV144—which was developed by the US and Thai military—showed early promise in clinical trials, but it was found to lose efficacy over time. This new regime is the same earlier RV144 vaccine regime with an added booster shot one year later. Further clinical trials of this new regime are set to begin in South Africa in early 2015.