Breakthroughs Blog: USAID

In 2001, I traveled to Ghana as a graduate student working on a US Agency for International Development-funded decentralization program. I arrived armed with materials on local governance best practices. But the mayors I met were focused on urgent public health issues: clean water, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. That trip, meant to be an early lesson in governance, became my first and most personal education in global health. It also nearly killed me. I was taking mefloquine weekly to prevent malaria. Toward the end of our stay, my partner and I set off to explore the country. Somewhere along the way, I developed what I believed to be giardia. That infection likely compromised the absorption of the mefloquine and left me dangerously vulnerable. One night in the village of Kokrobite, I woke with a high fever and chills so intense I could barely stand. A local man saw me and immediately recognized it as malaria. He arranged for a taxi to take me back to Accra. Before I left, he handed me a small, crumpled packet labeled in Chinese characters. Inside was a blister pack of pills. The only word written in English on the package was artesunate. He told me it would help, and, in that moment, sick, scared, and weak, I took it. At the hospital, a blood smear confirmed that I had cerebral malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum, the deadliest strain. Cerebral malaria can cause brain swelling, coma, and death. I drifted in and out of consciousness for days. At one point, hospital staff told my partner that there was nothing more they could do. I should “go home” and be “as comfortable as possible.”My partner worked relentlessly to get me on one of the next flights back to the United States. I was so sick that the airline nearly refused to let me board. Once we arrived home, I was seen right away by an infectious disease doctor at Johns Hopkins Hospital. After reviewing my labs and the herbal remedy package, he said plainly: this saved your life. The artesunate had bought me enough time to survive the journey and begin treatment. At the time, the World Health Organization had not yet formally endorsed artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) as the global standard for P. falciparum malaria. That came in 2006. But the effectiveness of artesunate alone was already well known in many parts of the world. That medicine saved my life.I missed several weeks of school but made a full recovery. Without that drug and the help of my partner (now my husband) and friends in Accra, I wouldn’t be here today. More than two decades have passed, and we've made tremendous progress. Insecticide-treated bed nets, rapid diagnostic tests, and ACTs have saved millions of lives. Two malaria vaccines, RTS,S and R21/Matrix-M, have been approved. Long-acting monoclonal antibodies are showing promise as seasonal protection for children. Newer insecticide-treated nets help counter resistance. And researchers are exploring RNA-based therapeutics and single-dose cures.Many of these breakthroughs are being developed by members of the Global Health Technologies Coalition, where I now serve as Executive Director. These tools represent our best chance not just to control malaria but to end it.But progress is not guaranteed. Cuts to foreign assistance and global health research and development are already slowing the progress of innovations in the pipeline. Some promising tools may be delayed or abandoned. That means more children at risk, more untreated infections, and more drug-resistant strains emerging. The parasite has evolved before. It will do so again if we let it. And malaria is no longer a disease that happens mostly outside of the United States. In the past two years, locally acquired cases have been reported in Florida, Texas, and Maryland. Climate change, global travel, and changing mosquito habitats are making malaria a threat we can no longer treat as distant. I know how thin the line is between surviving this disease and not. For me, it’s not abstract. It’s the memory of a fevered body, the generosity of strangers, and a medicine in the right place at the right time. This World Malaria Day, I urge leaders and policymakers to stay the course. The science is moving forward. But science alone isn’t enough. If we don’t finish what we’ve started, we risk letting malaria surge back and take more lives with it. Science has given us the tools. The question now is whether we will act in time or let the disease outpace us once again. 

An estimated 257 million women globally who want to avoid pregnancy are not using safe, modern contraceptive methods, leading to around 121 million unintended pregnancies globally every year—nearly half of all pregnancies. Ensuring all who wish to use contraception have access to safe, effective, and acceptable options can enable all people of reproductive potential to enjoy greater autonomy over their lives and health. To meet the diverse needs of people of reproductive age, we need a variety of new contraceptive choices, including options that are longer-lasting, more discreet, have fewer side effects, and require fewer visits to a health care provider, as well as additional options for men to take more of the burden of pregnancy prevention off the shoulders of women. In recognition of this year’s World Contraception Day, GHTC is highlighting six technological solutions in the pipeline that could enable greater access to contraception by breaking down barriers, especially for underserved populations and those in low-resource settings. 1. Next-generation contraceptive vaginal rings   Intravaginal rings—flexible silicone rings that are self-inserted into the body and release contraceptives—offer an easy-to-use, convenient, and discreet contraceptive option for many women worldwide. Today, women can choose from either a monthly or a yearly ring—the latter of which was developed by Population Council and first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2018. However, both ring options use a combination of the same estrogen hormone, ethinyl estradiol, and different types of progestin hormones. While these hormone options work well for many individuals, for others, they can cause side effects or risks, creating a need for rings with alternative hormones and rings that are nonhormonal. Thankfully, several next-generation rings are on the horizon.These next-generation options include two rings under development by Population Council, which use alternative hormones. The first, the three-month Nestorone®/estradiol intravaginal ring uses a form of estrogen that, unlike ethinyl estradiol, is not associated with an increased risk of blood clots in the veins among women with a higher body mass index—who account for 15 percent of adult women. It is currently being evaluated for use in women with a higher body mass index in a Phase 2b study.  The second, the Nestorone®-only vaginal ring, has no estrogen, offering an alternative for those who have estrogen sensitivities, those who are at higher risk of blood clots, and postpartum breastfeeding mothers, who are often advised against using hormonal contraception that contains ethinyl estradiol due to its effect on milk production and composition. The ring will soon undergo a Phase 2 dose-finding study.On the nonhormonal front, Daré Bioscience is developing Ovaprene®, a monthly vaginal ring which uses a “semi-permeable polymer mesh barrier” to physically stop sperm from entering the cervical canal. Early clinical studies found that the ring is well-tolerated and acceptable to sexually active women and their partners. Additional clinical trial results announced in 2024 also demonstrated safety and efficacy, paving the way for a Phase 3 trial now underway.2. Biodegradable contraceptive implant  Today’s contraceptive implants are small, flexible rods inserted under the skin that continuously release hormones for pregnancy prevention. While they are safe and long-lasting, after three years, they must be removed by a medical provider. That can be an issue, particularly in low-resource settings worldwide where fewer trained health care workers, distance, and cost can serve as barriers to care. Biodegradable contraceptive implants, which dissolve into the body, offer promise as a more convenient option that could improve access by cutting out the need for a trip to a medical facility for device removal.FHI 360 and development partners pH Sciences and Gesea Biosciences, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, developed a biodegradable implant called Casea S, which can provide protection against unintended pregnancy for 18 to 24 months. The implant is now being tested in a Phase 1 clinical trial, the first trial for a biodegradable contraceptive implant in more than 20 years.3. Microneedle contraceptive patches   Many women choose to use injectable forms of contraception for long-acting protection, but, for others, the need for regular shots and visits to a health care provider can make this a less desirable choice. But imagine if these injections were pain-free and did not require leaving home. That is the promise of microneedle or microarray patches, which are small Band-Aid-like patches that contain hundreds of microneedles that slowly release drugs into the body when pressed against the skin. The new technology, which is also being developed to deliver vaccines and therapeutics, could offer a discrete, user-controlled, and less painful option that could either be self-administered or administered by a health care provider with minimal training.  With support from the US Agency for International Development through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PATH is developing an easy-to-use, discreet, and self-administered contraceptive patch that could provide protection against unintended pregnancy and HIV, which is currently in preclinical development.FHI 360, in partnership with Population Council and the Georgia Institute of Technology, is also developing a three- to six-month, biodegradable, and progestin-only patch currently in the preclinical phase, with support from the US Agency for International Development and the Gates Foundation.4. Longer-acting contraceptive injectablesThe most commonly used contraceptive injection, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), approved by FDA back in 1992, offers a longer-lasting option than the daily pill, with a three-month period between injections. However, DMPA requires users to return often to their health care providers, and it has the highest discontinuation rate among contraceptives in the United States due to unpleasant side effects like menstrual irregularities, weight gain, and bone density loss.FHI 360 is in the midst of a Phase 3 trial testing a six-month version of DMPA that is injected under the skin rather than into the muscle, which could offer a longer-lasting, lower-dose option that is more convenient and presents a lower risk of side effects for users. The product, which is the furthest-along six-month injectable in the pipeline, could be approved as early as 2025 or 2026 if trials prove successful.  FHI 360 is also developing a six-month self-injectable contraceptive that uses levonorgestrel rather than DMPA and is being advanced through Phase 1 clinical trials in collaboration with the Shanghai Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Technologies, with funding from the Gates Foundation. This product could offer another longer-lasting option with potentially fewer side effects and the convenience of using it at home.  5. Male contraceptivesThe need for male contraceptive options beyond condoms and vasectomy to allow men to more equally share the responsibility of contraception has been widely and increasingly recognized. There are a number of technologies in development, including technologies that use hormones to disrupt the sperm creation process. Population Council has developed a novel, easy-to-use, and reversible gel hormonal contraceptive method that is applied daily to the shoulders and, if approved, would be the first-of-its-kind option for men. Early studies showed that it is well tolerated and causes no serious adverse events. A Phase 2b study yielded promising results, with a second part of the trial now underway. The gel, which could enter the final phase of testing in 2025 with the go-ahead from FDA, has made it excitingly far in a pipeline lacking in male contraceptive technologies beyond the preclinical stage.While hormonal strategies require a long time to start and stop working because of the considerable months-long sperm development process and could have side effects due to hormone disruption, there are also nonhormonal technologies in early-stage development. These nonhormonal strategies target specific processes later in sperm development and could start and stop working more quickly, perhaps even to the point of an on-demand product taken right before intercourse. One recent study in mice identified a new nonhormonal, reversible method that targets a protein complex important during sperm production, with the drug successfully stopping the process without producing side effects or causing irreversible effects. Another recent study in mice identified a different protein target necessary for fertility, finding similarly positive results.  Contraline and Next Life Sciences are also developing nonhormonal products that work by blocking the vas deferens, the tube in the male reproductive system that transports sperm, with an injectable gel. Contraline announced positive interim results from a first-in-human trial earlier this year. 6. Dual-use technologies for HIV, STI, and pregnancy preventionMultipurpose technologies that protect against unintended pregnancy, HIV, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) could be a game-changer in opening up access to prevention tools, particularly in low-resource settings, by reducing the burden on users and the health care system.In addition to the aforementioned microneedle patch for HIV and unintended pregnancy prevention, Population Council is developing several dual-use products. The two products likely to reach market fastest are a dual-use pill, which reformulates already approved medicines for oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and oral contraceptives into one tablet to be taken daily, and the dapivirine-levonorgestrel vaginal ring, which builds on the successful development of the one-month dapivirine ring for HIV prevention with a three-month ring that slowly releases the antiviral drug dapivirine and the contraceptive hormone levenorgestrel, drugs already approved in other forms. Other products in early development include a nonhormonal vaginal ring and a nonhormonal fast-dissolving vaginal insert, both designed to provide crosscutting protection against unintended pregnancy and STIs.Currently, contraceptive research and development is greatly underfunded, and there is an urgent need for new and improved products to better serve particular populations and those living in low-resource settings. The contraceptive technologies detailed above and others in the pipeline offer hope that we will in the future have a robust array of contraceptive options to ensure everyone globally who wants to use contraception has access to a product that works for them.  

Executive Director of the Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC) Dr. Kristie Mikus issued the following statement following the Senate Committee on Appropriations’ passage of the fiscal year 2025 (FY25) State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) bill:GHTC applauds the work of Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations SFOPS Subcommittee, and Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), Chair and Ranking Member of the full Senate Committee on Appropriations, for ensuring critical funding for US global health programs under increased fiscal pressure.  We especially thank Senate appropriators for including language in the Senate’s FY25 SFOPS appropriations report recognizing the importance of funding for global health research and development (R&D) and directing the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to examine the feasibility of creating a new dedicated global health R&D budget line.  This language is an important step toward realizing a GHTC-led proposal to create a Supporting Innovative Global Health Technologies (SIGHT) Fund—a flexible, disease-agnostic fund to be housed at USAID that would infuse new funding into R&D efforts to close the biggest gaps in our global health toolkit.R&D partnerships led by USAID have been instrumental in saving and improving millions of lives around the world while at the same time protecting the health of Americans and stimulating jobs here in the United States. US investments in global health R&D have infused $104 billion into the US economy and created more than 600,000 US jobs since 2007.  Appropriating dedicated global health R&D funds at USAID, to be implemented via a program like the SIGHT Fund, would intensify this tremendous impact and offer significant advantages over funding R&D solely through health-area-specific funding streams. It would ensure a strategic focus on innovation by reducing the trade-off between funding the implementation of existing tools and developing new and improved ones, as well as preserve the effectiveness of ongoing programs, enhance accountability, encourage risk-taking and partnerships, and strengthen the global health infrastructure for future challenges.    As the SIGHT Act (H.R. 6424)—legislation that would authorize the creation of a new global health R&D budget line—works its way through Congress in parallel, we are encouraged to see the Senate FY25 SFOPS report lay the groundwork for the incoming president to request—and Congress to appropriate—disease-agnostic funds specifically for global health R&D that are distinct from and do not compete directly with funding for program implementation or any other purpose.  GHTC calls on appropriators and authorizers in the House and Senate to build on this momentum and support USAID's global health R&D mandate by advancing the SIGHT Fund's mission in this and the next Congress. By committing to dedicated R&D funding, Congress can empower USAID to make groundbreaking advances in global health that could save millions of lives and improve health outcomes worldwide.   

Nearly six months into fiscal year 2024 (FY24), the US government has finally agreed upon a budget for the remaining six months. Nevertheless, March brings with it a new appropriations cycle forcibly run in parallel with the last. With the release of the President’s Budget Request (PBR) for fiscal year 2025 (FY25) and ongoing meetings with appropriations staff, the prospects for future US spending on global health research and development (R&D) are coming into focus, with both good and bad on the horizon.FY24 spending package: A mixed bag for global health R&D This year’s appropriations process was certainly one for the history books in that it was historically difficult—largely due to partisan divisions and threats to the House speakership. But on March 22, moments before a partial government shutdown was set to go into effect, a six-bill “minibus” was voted through by the House of Representatives and the Senate and later signed into law, which will keep the government operational until September 30. This second spending package included funding bills for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS); State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS); and Defense, which are a mixed bag for funding for global health R&D.LHHSThe LHHS bill, which covers funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), included some welcome increases to agencies and programs that support global health research alongside overall stagnant funding.Out of the three agencies, BARDA, which focuses on the R&D of countermeasures against emerging health threats, received the largest increase in funding with a $65 million (6.8 percent) boost over fiscal year 2023 (FY23) levels, bringing its total budget to $1.015 billion. The CDC, America’s lead public health agency, and NIH, the primary agency responsible for biomedical health research, witnessed marginal adjustments, with their budget lines most relevant to global health R&D remaining largely static. Notably, CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) received a $9.5 million (1.27 percent) boost, which will help bolster crucial surveillance initiatives such as the Advanced Molecular Detection program.  Additionally, the minibus also included complimentary directives, known as report language, which were championed by GHTC, that reinforce the importance of global health and neglected disease research taking place at CDC and NIH. It also included important language encouraging BARDA to consider the needs of people living in low-resource settings in its R&D funding decisions and directing the agency to provide more transparent and regular reporting on its investments and allocate at least $10 million of its budget to create a new Disease X medical countermeasures program to develop tools against viral families with pandemic potential.SFOPSThe SFOPS bill covers global health work undertaken by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Department of State (State). Unfortunately, the FY24 spending package included a significant cut of $530.95 million (5.3 percent) to State and USAID global health programs.Much of this reduction is due to a decrease in funding by $350 million for the US contribution to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which fell from $2 billion in FY23 to $1.65 billion in FY24. While this is a large cut, it was both expected and supported by advocates, given that US law caps the maximum contribution that the United States can make to the fund relative to the contributions of other donors. Thus, the “cut” was implemented in line with the cap to avoid a harsh drop-off in US funding in the coming years. Accordingly, many advocates are not viewing it as an actual cut. The remaining decrease in funding comes from a significant $200 million (22 percent) cut to USAID Global Health Security (GHS). The FY24 funding for GHS of $700 million retains a $100 million carve-out for a US contribution to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, but advocates are still piecing together what the $200 million slash could mean for other GHS programming. This picture is further complicated by the opaque nature of how the US government intends to fund a contribution to the World Bank Pandemic Fund, which is neither specified in the bill in terms of a funding number nor in the programmatic budget line. The Biden Administration announced last year its intent to contribute $250 million to the fund, but this contribution is not actually detailed in the spending package, so it remains unclear how this commitment will be realized. Slightly cushioning the overall cut to State and USAID global health programs are some modest increases to the budget lines for the maternal and child health (through an increase in funding to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance), nutrition, and other public health threats programs.In a key win for global health research advocates, Congress also included accompanying report language for SFOPS directing USAID to increase its spending for health R&D over the prior fiscal year and to publish an annual report on its health R&D activities and investments. Notably, the reauthorization of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, was also included in the SFOPS bill but only for one year, so authorization will expire next March. This one-year reauthorization tees up another battle, which will certainly be shaped by the political climate and controlling parties following the presidential and congressional elections this fall.DefenseWhile few may think of the US Department of Defense (DoD) as a key global health player, the agency’s spending supports R&D against epidemic-prone diseases and other health issues that pose a risk to US national security and service members stationed abroad—so its investments contribute to combating diseases endemic in many of the world’s poorest places. Encouragingly, language supporting DoD's research on infectious diseases and the development of medical countermeasures was included in the accompanying Defense bill report.Unfortunately, however, Congress did not include tuberculosis among the diseases eligible to be funded via the DoD-led Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program’s (CDMRP’s) Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP), as has been the case in years past. This is a point of future advocacy since the CDMRP PRMRP funds other neglected and emerging diseases in line with the list of eligible diseases defined in the Senate’s Defense bill each year.FY25 President’s Budget: A story of lowered ambitionOn March 11, President Joe Biden released his FY25 budget request, outlining his administration's recommendations to Congress for spending for the next fiscal year. The FY25 PBR is more moderate than Biden’s FY24 proposal, which can be largely attributed to the administration upholding their end of the debt ceiling bargain to keep overall spending levels capped at roughly FY23 levels. But even still, the lack of boldness for global health activities across the board was felt by advocates.With respect to global health programs at State and USAID, the budget proposes an overall decrease of approximately $733 million (7 percent) compared to FY23 enacted levels. This includes a $175 million (4.2 percent) cut to USAID and a $558 million (8.9 percent) cut to State global health programs. Concerning the latter, the cut comes from the PBR proposing a $1.19 billion contribution to the Global Fund, which would be an $810 million reduction from FY23 levels. As previously noted, this drastic cut is due in large part to the cap imposed on maximum US contributions; however, advocates are still pushing for $1.65 billion in FY25, citing projections that the US contribution can be set higher without violating the cap. The proposed USAID cut is more nuanced and comes from an accounting choice by the administration to transfer funding for the US contribution to the Pandemic Fund ($250 million) from under the Global Health Security line at USAID to the budget for State’s new Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy, which will now manage US engagement with the fund. In conversations with the agency, the movement of this funding is not being perceived as a cut—leaving USAID’s global health programs largely untouched in the PBR. Most programs are flat funded, though the budget proposes a modest $30 million (3.3 percent) boost to USAID’s maternal and child health programs and a reduction of $26 million (4.5 percent) to USAID’s family planning account.On the LHHS side, the budget proposal is slightly rosier, though far from ambitious. The PBR proposes increases of $20 million (2.1 percent) for BARDA and $1.4 billion (2.3 percent) for NIH overall, with the latter including a modest boost of $18.72 million (0.3 percent) for NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases but flat funding for NIH’s Fogarty International Center, which supports global health research and training. CDC received a proposed increase of $465.4 million (5 percent) in the PBR, with NCEZID receiving a $30 million (4 percent) increase and the Center for Global Health flat funded.Notably, CDC’s congressional budget justification proposes that $20 million of this funding for NCEZID be put towards wastewater surveillance, which is programming that is currently being supported unsustainably via emergency funding for the COVID-19 response. Additionally, in the BARDA congressional budget justification, the administration suggests a $20 million boost “to increase BARDA’s Broad Spectrum Antimicrobials and Combatting Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria portfolio" through engagement with the Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator, or CARB-X, an international partnership focused on accelerating the development of new antibacterial innovations.While GHTC understands the administration’s fiscal situation and negotiating position with Congress, the discrepancy between the administration’s ambitions from the FY24 PBR to the FY25 PBR are stark, with some agencies seeing decreases of over $1 billion between the two presidential requests.FY25 outlook: Not great, but not badWhile it may feel cruel for advocates, there is no breathing room between the FY24 and FY25 appropriations processes. Additionally, the constraints the global health community felt in 2024 in the wake of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023—also known as the Biden-McCarthy Debt Ceiling Deal that capped spending growth—are still with us. Even though the outcomes of the FY24 spending package were discouraging for global health advocates—it went better than many expected. For FY25, while a robust and bold global and public health budget is the goal—holding off any cuts and returning to FY23 topline budgets for global health programs will be critical. GHTC will be working to communicate that message clearly while keeping in mind the uphill battle caused by the parameters forced upon appropriators by last June’s debt ceiling deal.Other obstacles like election-year politicking and a remarkable loss in global health champions in Congress will make future negotiations harder and will require advocates to go more on the offense. Pushing for stronger toplines and no cuts will be vital in FY25 to get the gains the community needs to get the world back on track toward eradicating neglected diseases and better preparing for emerging threats.