Breakthroughs Blog: WHO

The World Health Organization (WHO) has faced tumultuous times over the past few years, and this year’s Executive Board (EB) meeting seemed to bring a chaotic new chapter. Major tectonic political shifts worldwide have plunged the global health organization into serious talks about its long-term funding, sustainability, scope, and ability to deliver on its core mandate.   The EB was anything but business as usual, though member states did their level best to address the political tensions du jour while trying to move through a regular agenda that spanned issues from noncommunicable diseases and maternal and child health to global health security and climate and health. Here are some reflections from a hectic week in Geneva: “We do expect things to change...”  - Assistant Director-General for Business Operations Raul Thomas1. Member states agree to reduce the WHO budget and mostly commit to a 20 percent increase in assessed contributions.In his opening remarks before the WHO EB, Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus noted that even before the United States and Argentina’s withdrawal announcements, WHO was planning to shrink spending because of a shortfall caused by economic difficulties in many donor countries.  WHO’s budgetary shortfalls overshadowed the first several sessions of the EB, with many member states expressing concern over the sustainability of WHO’s financing in the next biennial budget. Ultimately, a decision was made to lower the program budget to $4.9 billion (from $5.3 billion). Assistant Director-General for Business Operations Raul Thomas captured the general sentiment of EB funding conversations, conveying that WHO’s cash flow is secure for now, but WHO leadership “expects things to change” regarding the viability of the organization’s budget.   However, member states harped over what should change. Many supported a 20 percent increase in assessed contributions—something that members had agreed to at the World Health Assembly (WHA) two years ago—that would reduce the organization’s reliance on voluntary contributions from member states, while others, specifically Russia and China, showed opposition to this plan.   Several member states emphasized the importance of continuing down a path toward sustainable financing through the WHO investment round and developing alternative short- and long-term resource mobilization plans. Member states also urged WHO to distribute information about what the 20 percent increase in assessed contributions would mean for each country. Given the reduced budget, countries insisted on costing all 2025 draft resolutions and decisions prior to any vote during this year’s session.   “It’s back to basics...” - WHO Regional Director for Europe Dr. Hans Kluge2. WHO leadership and member states stress progress and continued need for reform.In the wake of the larger discussions held during the EB about prioritization due to the cash crunch the WHO is facing, there was also a strong focus on the continued need to streamline and reform the organization. WHO Regional Director for Europe Dr. Hans Kluge called for the organization to go “back to basics.” Dr. Kluge emphasized the importance of remaining steadfast to WHO’s organizational mission while being adaptive to emerging threats like antimicrobial resistance (AMR).  Director-General Dr. Tedros also referenced WHO reforms in his opening remarks, acknowledging the significant improvements the organization has made over the last five years, including the newly introduced prequalification framework for novel products. At the same time, Dr. Tedros emphasized the need for continued reform and underscored the importance of engaging in constructive dialogue with member states moving forward.  During the final two days of the EB, member states agreed to several internal improvements and left the door open for further reform discussions at WHA. Citing concerns over its unclear mandate and overlap with other divisions, member states decided to extend by one year the operations of the Standing Committee on Health Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response—which was first established in 2022 to provide guidance and recommendations to the EB and the Director-General on WHO’s emergency response—through May of next year to further evaluate the role of the committee and other similar bodies in health emergencies.  3. Global health security, maternal and child health, and the nexus of climate and health remain key topics.Member states did manage to untangle themselves from WHO’s structural dialogues to fully engage with the more than 47 agenda items on the docket this year.  WHO’s work in health emergencies featured prominently on the agenda once more, though much of the discussion centered around the need to adjust the scope of WHO’s activities. A few member states, including the European Union, Australia, Ethiopia, Finland, and the Republic of Korea, reaffirmed their commitment to the Pandemic Accord, including the then-upcoming negotiations that took place last week, as critical to advancing the prevention, preparedness, and response agenda, including access to medical countermeasures.Dozens of member states shared their appreciation of WHO’s report and draft action plan on women’s, children’s, and adolescents’ health and emphasized their commitment to advancing this agenda item, though Dr. Tedros highlighted that despite progress, “we still have a long way to go.” Equity and access were primary topics of concern for many countries. Several countries also advocated for greater urgency in accelerating efforts for maternal and child health and stressed the importance of intersectoral policies for vulnerable populations. Mentions of research and development were notably absent from the discussion, despite its critical role in addressing gaps in maternal, newborn, and child health, particularly in low-resource settings.  Countries also deliberated the draft global action plan on climate change and health. The plan, which includes some strong R&D provisions, outlines strategic frameworks for building climate-resilient health systems. However, it was surprising to note the absence of the threat of AMR, which is mentioned only once in the document. AMR is poised to cause 10 million annual deaths by 2050 and likely more with the growing influence of rising temperatures and evolving zoonotic diseases. Concerns over cost also dominated the discussion on this agenda item, and several member states, including Malaysia, Bangladesh, and representatives from the Africa Group, highlighted the need to include common but differentiated responsibilities—a longstanding equity principle in climate negotiations that holds historical emitters to a higher bar of responsibility for climate action.4. Civil society engagement continues to be a challenge at the EB.At the tail end of the EB, member states zeroed in on the role of civil society in these debates. While there seemed to be general agreement on the overall usefulness of non-state actor (NSA) statements in WHO proceedings, we did see the continued trend of politicizing otherwise straightforward processes governing NSA access and status with WHO. Member states held a fervent debate over WHO’s Framework on Engagement with non-State Actors (FENSA), which outlines clear criteria and principles for attaining status with the WHO. During the debate, some member states questioned the framework, with representatives from the Eastern Mediterranean and African Regions, as well as China and Russia, all expressing concern over the Centre for Reproductive Rights and Women Deliver receiving status from WHO. The delegate from Egypt captured this sentiment best: “Our reading of FENSA is that it is the foundation and main criteria that we use to accept or reject NSAs — it’s the foundation, but it is not obligatory for member states to accept only on this criteria.”  While on the surface, this debate may appear like an outlier, it marks a broader shift in how some member states are approaching the global health agency, as it has become more commonplace in the last few years to overturn or question established frameworks, rules, and processes at WHO based on national politics. This is especially concerning for civil society, which has seen its ability to meaningfully engage in these forums curtailed over the years.Dr. Tedros concluded the EB by acknowledging the endurance of countries in getting through such a substantial agenda this year and the significance of WHA later this May. While we often talk about the importance of these forums for combatting specific health threats, this year feels like a bigger moment and pivot point for the global health architecture as a whole. Will WHO be able to shoulder the financial blow, make the necessary reforms, and find a way to become more sustainable in its operations? Or will the global health community look back at this moment as the start of the unraveling of the global health ecosystem? Only time will tell.

As 2025 kicks off, we are poised for a year of political uncertainty. There are questions aplenty around the future of US leadership in global health and how priorities will change as the Trump Administration takes office. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's resignation and the upcoming elections in Germany may also lead to further policy changes in donor countries historically committed to global health and development. This reshaping of global political dynamics and the lasting impact of emerging infectious disease threats present challenges and opportunities for multilateral collaboration and innovation for global health research and development (R&D) in 2025. As we look ahead at the global health landscape in this pivotal year, here are some of the key issues we are watching. 1. Will the United States fully withdraw from WHO this time?In his very first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), a move that many global health experts agree will make the United States and other countries less safe from infectious diseases and other public health threats. President Trump had previously initiated the process to pull US support from the organization in 2020, but the clock ran out before the end of his term, and President Joe Biden later reversed the decision at the start of his presidency. In the executive order, President Trump outlined his administration’s reasoning for pulling out of the global health agency, decrying “unfairly onerous” payments from the United States compared to other member states and the organization’s “inappropriate political influence.”  The departure from WHO will have dire consequences for global public health, as well as US security, diplomacy, and influence. There are a number of US institutions that collaborate closely with WHO on important work that remains vital to US interests, including polio eradication, cancer prevention, and global health security. US agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and laboratories rely on the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework to gain access to new influenza virus samples for R&D. Severing ties with WHO will impede US access to crucial tools for developing biological countermeasures to influenza.   And WHO’s work extends far beyond influenza. WHO has tremendous reach, working with 150 countries and 70 research institutions in the United States alone. WHO supports the global tracking of infectious diseases, updating networks for polio, measles, and other diseases to provide real-time data for member state officials to guide public health responses. The organization helps facilitate global access to a variety of health products and provides an accelerated path for the procurement of safe, effective, and reliable health innovations. WHO’s prequalification program expands global markets for US producers, offering an accelerated path for approval and uptake of American health innovations in low- and middle-income countries. For example, in 2024, WHO prequalified a Hepatitis self-test manufactured by Pennsylvania-based OraSure Technologies. Lastly, there are concerns about how the US withdrawal will diminish its influence in such a critical global institution. While no major organization is perfect, WHO has chartered a path of reform in recent years, due in large part to US leadership pushing for more effective and efficient governance structures. US concerns will only continue to be addressed if we remain a member state, working with WHO officials and other countries on improvements to the organization. The executive order also calls for broad reassessment and reassignment of American WHO personnel, many of whom play a pivotal role in supporting and directing the organization’s essential work around the world—from responding to disease outbreaks and training local health care workers to classifying disease variants and chairing the WHO Science Council. In fact, there are more Americans in leadership positions at WHO than from any other country. Pulling out of the organization only jeopardizes the United States’ ability to continue to be the most important player in the global health space. 2. Is there enough time to successfully conclude the Pandemic Accord negotiations?A Pandemic Accord could be a game changer in strengthening R&D capacity and creating new frameworks for the development of and access to new medical countermeasures. Reaching a position of solidarity is undoubtedly challenging in an increasingly fragmented world, but if the agreement fails, it will represent a massive failure for global health.   In 2024, countries tried and failed to finalize this proposed international agreement to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response (PPPR). Negotiations proved too contentious and the timeline too short to deliver on a new framework. In 2025, countries have one last chance to get it across the finish line. While significant progress was made on reaching consensus on several articles at the end of last year, pain points persist on technology- and knowledge-sharing mandates and the inclusion and operational details of the proposed Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system—a mechanism that would facilitate the sharing of pathogen samples and genetic data needed for product development in exchange for benefits like free or discounted contributions of health products.  The Pandemic Accord negotiators held five meetings in 2024, adding up to a total of twelve negotiating sessions held since 2022. And though member states are closer to reaching a finalized text, late last year, negotiators again pushed back their deadline to the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025. The Executive Order signed by President Trump on January 21 demands that the Secretary of State cease negotiations on the Pandemic Accord and recall and reassign American staff working with WHO; these actions will further disrupt the negotiating process, leaving the United States notably absent from any further discussions.3. How will the G20 and G7 continue the momentum in 2025?  South Africa assumed the G20 presidency late last year, and the question now is how they will build on the momentum of global health progress made under previous G20 presidencies. At the end of last year, South Africa outlined its health priorities, which include accelerating Universal Health Coverage through primary care, strengthening health workforces, combating noncommunicable diseases, and advancing PPPR. South Africa also introduced a science and innovation arm to its global health agenda, committing to review, strengthen, and leverage member state science, research, and innovation sectors.  It will be worth watching whether South Africa builds upon and facilitates the implementation of Brazil’s signature initiative from their presidency last year, the Coalition for Local and Regional Production, Innovation, and Equitable Access, which seeks to strengthen local production to enable more equitable access to safe, affordable, high-quality, and effective health products for neglected diseases.  While South Africa has established an ambitious global health agenda, there is a broader concern that the G20 might succumb to the current tumultuous political climate—France is resettling after elections of its National Assembly last year, the United States has swapped party leadership across the White House and Congress, and Germany has federal elections scheduled for February. With several G20 members undergoing political shake-ups and heavy domestic issues underpinning global conversations, finding member state synergy will be critical this year. And the G7 does not appear to be in a better position after Prime Minister Trudeau’s resignation in early January, as leadership transitions and operational delays will likely sidetrack G7 responsibilities and hamper ambition.  4. Will the financing drum beat fade?This year will also be significant for global health financing. 2025 wraps the seventh three-year replenishment fundraising cycle of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The new WHO Investment Round continues as well, and the World Bank Pandemic Fund announced that its third funding cycle will begin later this spring, shifting from the last two rounds of financing PPPR-related projects to now emphasize support for national and regional health institutions.  Yet, despite the continued need to increase investment in key global health institutions and priority areas, many governments find themselves in constrained resource environments, and around the globe, leaders are pulling back their commitments to provide the necessary funds to address critical challenges like emerging infectious diseases. Mobilizing new funds will be vital for delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals, and 2025 may represent a crossroads on whether countries can sustainably and adequately finance programs, research, and initiatives that boost PPPR.  It is undoubtedly a year marked by change and challenge in global health. As we move into 2025, policymakers, experts, and advocates must navigate an increasingly complex space. The road ahead will require all of us to foster collaboration, embrace creativity, and strengthen advocacy efforts within the global health community. But most of all, it may be the year for the global health community to showcase resilience and forge innovative pathways and partnerships that drive meaningful progress in global health R&D.  

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. Last Wednesday, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it had prequalified a point-of-care assay that can help guide the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria. The assay, developed by SD Biosensor and PATH, detects glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, which can lead to severe anemia in patients taking certain drugs to treat P. vivax malaria. This designation aims to improve access to the diagnostic in countries facing a high burden of malaria, enabling improved treatment for patients. The announcement arrives shortly after WHO prequalified two drugs for the treatment of P. vivax malaria last month.Researchers at the University of Minnesota and the Midwest Antiviral Drug Discovery Center have developed the first nanobody-based inhibitors targeting the Ebola virus, a deadly pathogen with a fatality rate of about 50 percent. Nanobodies are small antibodies derived from animals that can penetrate areas of viruses and human tissues that larger antibodies cannot reach, providing protection against infection. The team, which previously developed nanobodies to target COVID-19, found promising results for their nanobodies in lab tests in Ebola-infected mice. If this research continues to be successful, it could pave the way for treatments not only for Ebola but also for other viruses in the same family, including Sudan ebolavirus and Marburg virus.Last week, the Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (CARB-X) announced $2.6 million in funding to Clarametyx Biosciences to develop an anti-biofilm vaccine that could help prevent serious bacterial infections and mitigate the rise of antibiotic resistance. Specifically, the funding will support the further development of the company’s pathogen-agnostic vaccine candidate designed to prevent the formulation of bacterial biofilms, which are protective layers that bacteria use to shield themselves from antibiotics and the immune system, therefore allowing the body’s immune system to clear infections without the use of antibiotics. Hard-to-treat bacterial infections associated with biofilms are estimated to be responsible for up to 80 percent of bacterial infections and are known to contribute to the emergence of antibiotic resistance.

In many ways, 2024 has been a year marked by change—the first new year since the official end of the COVID-19 pandemic and a record number of elections ushering in political transitions around the world. With the global spotlight shifting to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and tuberculosis (TB) reclaiming the designation as the top infectious disease killer from COVID-19, it may seem, at first glance, that the world has moved on from the pandemic that dominated every aspect of life for the better part of four years. However, with a deeper look, it’s clear that the global community is still reacting to and learning from the pandemic—for better or worse.As the year comes to an end, GHTC is reflecting on the global health innovation news and policies that shaped 2024.1. New disease outbreaks arise around the world, spurring need for and progress in R&D.In 2024, disease outbreaks continued to dominate the headlines—from the first reports of avian flu in the United States in March to the rapid global spread of the clade 1b mpox strain over the summer to the outbreak of the deadly Marburg virus in Rwanda beginning in September. Each of these incidents exposed devastating gaps in our prevention and response toolkit and spurred important steps forward on research and development (R&D) and access.For example, in response to the worrisome spread of avian flu, both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US government launched efforts to accelerate the development of mRNA vaccines that could be deployed in case of human-to-human transmission of the currently spreading strain of avian flu or redirected to target another form of pandemic influenza if needed. Additionally, following declarations from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and WHO designating mpox a public health emergency this past August, WHO prequalified the first vaccine against mpox and approved the first mpox test for emergency use, with the goal of accelerating global access to these critically needed tools. The outbreak also provoked new research to develop improved vaccines against mpox and the broader range of orthopox viruses, with early studies of mRNA mpox vaccines in macaques and mice demonstrating promising results.This fall, as cases of Marburg were on the rise in Rwanda, and with no currently approved vaccines or treatments available, researchers fast-tracked efforts to evaluate tools to stem the current outbreak and curb future ones. Rwandan health authorities initiated an open label vaccine trial in health workers and others at heightened risk, and there has since been a randomized clinical trial arm launched, which will offer critical efficacy data. Additionally, scientists launched the first-ever clinical trial for a Marburg treatment this year.Beyond accelerating innovation against these outbreaks, 2024 also brought exciting research advancements targeting other pathogens scientists believe are most likely to cause the next pandemic, including trials that could lead to the first-ever approved vaccines for Sudan ebolavirus and Lassa fever, as well as further efforts to improve coronavirus vaccines and simplify and speed up vaccine development and manufacturing.2. Pandemic preparedness policy reforms march forward while post-COVID political backlash in United States grows.Multilateral efforts to strengthen the world’s pandemic preparedness and response architecture moved incrementally forward this year. At the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May, member states adopted several amendments to the International Health Regulations—an existing framework codifying international responsibilities during a pandemic—, including new commitments to solidarity and equity on financing and ensuring access to medical products. The World Bank-hosted Pandemic Fund, a financing mechanism launched in 2022 to help low- and middle-income countries strengthen their preparedness and response capacities, also raised $982 million in new contributions and an additional $1.8 billion in co-financing this year, as well as awarded $500 million in grants to countries to strengthen surveillance, laboratory, and workforce capacities and fast-tracked an additional $129 million for the mpox response. Under the Brazilian presidency, G20 nations established a voluntary coalition to strengthen local and regional production of health products, which, while focused foremost on neglected diseases, could also strengthen capacities critical for pandemic preparedness and response. Unfortunately, despite some progress on negotiations toward a new pandemic accord, countries failed to reach sufficient consensus before the end of this year, and negotiators are now pushing to wrap up by the next WHA in May of 2025.At the same time as some progress was achieved on the international front, in the United States, post-COVID political backlash has deepened and become more entrenched through congressional scrutiny and reform agendas targeting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Though the fiscal year 2025 budget is not expected to be finalized until next year, the health-related spending bill introduced by the House proposes spending cuts to CDC and a reorganization of NIH, which mirrors that put forward by House Republicans over the summer and could have serious implications for the agency’s core global health R&D capacities. Beyond appropriations, we also continued to see a plethora of congressional hearings targeting NIH and CDC on the origins of COVID-19, gain-of-function research, China’s influence, and the perception that these agencies are overstepping their mandates. The scrutiny and reform efforts we saw this year are expected to intensify in 2025, as Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.3. AMR captures the world’s attention as the global threat continues to grow.2024 was informally dubbed “the year of AMR,” with AMR elevated on the global agenda at several key moments. In May, a WHA resolution was adopted to accelerate national and global responses to AMR by advancing R&D, strengthening surveillance systems, and forging international partnerships. Later in September, a landmark report found that without further policy interventions, the death toll from AMR is expected to reach 39 million between 2025 and 2050—the equivalent of three deaths per minute.This shocking report set the scene for the United Nations High-Level Meeting on AMR in September, which led to the adoption of a political declaration that set the goal to reduce AMR deaths by 10 percent by 2030 and committed countries to promote the R&D of and equitable access to antimicrobials, vaccines, diagnostics, and other products. Global leaders also adopted an action plan in November, built off of the declaration, to provide actionable objectives and additional check-ins to monitor progress.This political momentum on AMR was also matched by exciting research breakthroughs that made the news this year. Researchers discovered a new compound that could potentially treat a resistant bacterial pathogen that can cause lethal hospital infections. Additionally, Phase 3 trials yielded promising results for both a therapeutic option for patients with serious bacterial infections and limited treatment options, as well as a new antibiotic that could cure uncomplicated gonorrhea infections, which could be approved sometime next year.4. TB reclaims title of deadliest infectious disease, but promising trials offer hope. This past year, TB surpassed COVID-19 to reclaim the spot as the world’s leading infectious disease killer, according to WHO’s Global Tuberculosis Report 2024. While this sobering news underscored major gaps in the tools needed to prevent, diagnose, and treat TB, especially drug-resistant TB, 2024 also brought exciting news on the research front that will hopefully help fill them.In March, a Phase 3 trial launched in South Africa, which is testing a TB vaccine candidate that could eventually become the first vaccine to prevent pulmonary TB in adolescents and adults. The only approved TB vaccine on the market, which was developed more than 100 years ago, is effective at preventing some types of TB in infants, but it offers inconsistent protection in adults against pulmonary TB. Additionally in November, the endTB consortium announced the completion of the first Phase 3 randomized controlled trial to exclusively enroll people with pre-extensively drug-resistant TB, a very hard-to-treat form of TB. Preliminary results demonstrated that a shorter, less toxic treatment strategy achieved high cure rates. Earlier in the year, WHO also recommended three new regimens for multidrug- or rifampicin-resistant TB, offering a much-needed variety of therapeutic alternatives for those with multidrug-resistant TB. 5. A major HIV breakthrough, but work remains on access. In what has been hailed as a breakthrough in HIV prevention, in 2024, exciting results were reported from a series of clinical trials for Gilead’s long-acting HIV prevention drug, lenacapavir, which found that the drug was 100 percent effective in preventing HIV in cisgender women and adolescent girls and 96 percent effective among cisgender men, transgender men and women, and gender nonbinary individuals who have sex with men. Both trials were so successful that they were unblinded early to offer the drug to all participants. Lenacapavir, which is administered via a twice-yearly injection, is currently approved as a treatment for multidrug-resistant HIV, but, if approved as a preventative regimen, the drug could be a game-changer for the HIV pandemic.Advocates applauded Gilead for its historic commitment to inclusion in these trials, while also urging that lenacapavir be made accessible and affordable as soon as possible to those that most need it. In October, Gilead announced a plan to allow generic versions of the drug to be sold in 120 countries, including all those with the highest HIV rates. However, the plan faced criticism for excluding most middle- and high-income countries that account for around 20 percent of new HIV infections. In these countries, the originator drug will only be available at higher prices, making it potentially inaccessible to at-risk populations.In other welcome HIV prevention news, in October, Population Council announced the results of a Phase 1 trial, which suggest that a three-month dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention will be as effective as the currently approved one-month ring. The ring, which is self-inserted into the vagina and slowly releases an antiretroviral drug to prevent infection over three months, was found to deliver the drug at higher levels than the one-month ring. If the longer-acting ring continues to demonstrate success, it could offer a more cost-effective and convenient option for at-risk women. 6. Trump presidency and Republican trifecta portend changes to US leadership in global health.In the November election in the United States, former President Donald Trump won the presidency and Republicans gained control of both the US House of Representatives and the Senate. It was an across-the-board victory that will portend changes to US leadership on global health and medical research. If past is prologue, we’re likely to see President-elect Trump once again propose significant funding cuts to US global health programs and public health agencies like NIH and CDC, as well as withdraw the United States from WHO and other multilateral initiatives, the latter of which could derail efforts to finalize a pandemic accord. Given that the United States is the largest funder of global health programs and global health R&D efforts, these political changes could have a reverberating impact on health around the world.Since winning the presidency, President-elect Trump has also nominated several controversial picks to lead America’s public health agencies. These include Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a noted vaccine skeptic who has expressed a desire to cut the NIH workforce and refocus the agency on chronic diseases over infectious diseases, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a health economist who criticized public health measures during the COVID-19 response and a vocal critic of NIH, to lead NIH; and Dr. Dave Weldon, a former Congressman who has questioned vaccine safety, to lead CDC.On the congressional front, with Republicans now in control of both chambers of the US Congress, as discussed, we’ll likely see continued scrutiny and reform efforts targeting NIH and CDC, as well as potential spending cuts to health and foreign assistance programs.7. New policies and innovative research approaches help reach underserved populations.Every person, everywhere, deserves to benefit from the fruits of science, and in this otherwise tumultuous year, there were several successful efforts to advance more inclusive clinical studies. In September, WHO released new guidance on clinical trial best practices outlining practical considerations for trials to include children and pregnant and lactating individuals, populations currently underrepresented in trials, leading to a lack of approved technologies for these groups. This guidance aligned with WHO’s living toolkit to facilitate the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding populations in clinical trials that was published earlier in the year. 2024 also brought the launch of two historic trials that aim to diversify research and thereby ensure that future technologies will serve the needs of underserved populations. This summer, a global consortium launched the first-ever Phase 3 clinical trial testing the efficacy and safety of antimalarials in women in their first trimester of pregnancy, which will hopefully not only lead to an urgently needed new treatment option for these women but also set a precedent for the inclusion of pregnant women in future clinical trials. Earlier this year, the US Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response also announced funding to Walgreens to support a decentralized clinical trial testing COVID-19 vaccines. This unique approach will allow for a more diverse pool of study participants by bringing the study closer to where they live, ultimately ensuring that the resulting data reflects real-world use among a broader swath of the population. In the end, 2024 proved to be a complicated year, marked by both scientific and political steps forward and back. As new innovations and policies emerge in 2025 and beyond, GHTC will continue to work to ensure support for global health R&D remains a political priority and that the gains we have already made on neglected and emerging health challenges are not only sustained but also strengthened to combat an evolving health landscape.For other fascinating global health news delivered to your inbox weekly and to stay abreast of developments in 2025 and beyond, sign up now to receive GHTC’s R&D News Roundup newsletter.