News

This coming week the “who’s who” of the global health community (as well as some much more modest global health advocates such as your humble author) will make the annual trek to Geneva, Switzerland, for the 69th World Health Assembly (WHA), where World Health Organization (WHO) member states will collectively decide WHO’s plans for the coming year. This year’s agenda is packed and includes many topics that could impact global health research and development (R&D). Below are the agenda items GHTC will be tracking in Geneva and topics we’ll dig into in more detail at a May 23 side event and webinar we are cohosting with the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Global Health R&D: What’s at stake during the 69th WHA? Framework of engagement with non-State actors WHO routinely engages with a variety of non-State actors (NSAs)—any organization other than a member state. These collaborations support core components of WHO’s global health strategy. Some have argued, however, that WHO’s current ad-hoc approach to managing such engagements undermines its independence and impartiality. As I have written previously, the current draft framework runs the very real risk of excluding key WHO partners and actors in the global health R&D community. Given the significant member state pushback against the proposal, it will be fascinating to see how the tension is resolved.   Health in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development With the approval of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015, the global development community has been trying to sort out how to implement and measure programming to achieve what are, by all admissions, extremely ambitious targets. WHO is no different, and has been hard at work laying out strategies to achieve the various components of goal 3, the “health SDG.” It is particularly heartening that target 3.b specifically commits member states to supporting health R&D. What shape this will take, and how WHO will engage are definitely hot topics to watch at this WHA.   Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance Following the 68th WHA’s adoption of the Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), WHO has been working to develop strategic options to achieve the plan’s goals and will be presenting a progress update and an options paper to WHA this year for input. GHTC is closely monitoring plans for the R&D objective, which states: “… develop the economic case for sustainable investment that takes account of the needs of all countries, and increase investment in new medicines, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other interventions.” While the options paper is quite broad, in the R&D space the WHO Secretariat is specifically asking for input on methods to de-link R&D costs from sale price, how best to support access to innovative antimicrobials, and how to develop a prioritization mechanism to support appropriate R&D on AMR specifically. Given the danger that the global rise of AMR represents, the discussion is likely to be extensive and intense.   Follow-up to the report of the Consultative Expert Working Group (CEWG) on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination (Report of the open-ended meeting of Member States) GHTC has been following the CEWG process for some time as it winds its way forward after what has already been a decade-long process. The prototype R&D observatory is now online, and the demonstration projects are returning their progress reports. The WHO Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) has prepared an analysis that outlines how a pooled fund and R&D observatory could work to identify unmet needs and channel funds to those R&D projects. While almost everyone agrees that additional funds and greater coordination are sorely needed, as we heard at GHTC’s webinar on CEWG, the jury is still split on the CEWG’s specific proposals. While it is unlikely that the CEWG process will come to an end at this WHA, the number of concerns that can be ironed out with all the decision-makers in the room will be telling in regards to future prospects.   For more analysis on these subjects, read GHTC’s fact sheet on Research and development at the 69th World Health Assembly.  

Last Wednesday, researchers from the Washington University School of Medicine, the University of São Paulo, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences offered new insights into the impact of the Zika virus on fetal brain development in mice, publishing their findings in Cell, Nature, and Cell Stem Cell, respectively. The first two studies sought to successfully infect pregnant mice with Zika—a feat in itself as mice don’t often fall ill after infection with the virus. Consequently, the team at Washington University used a genetically modified mouse with a weakened immune system as well as a mouse whose immune system was weakened by an antibody, while researchers at the University of São Paulo used a particularly high dose. The team at Washington University detected placental insufficiency in the infected mice—which limits blood flow to the fetus—and the team at University of São Paulo reported intrauterine growth restriction, a condition restricting the growth of the fetus. When the virus reached the fetal brains, both teams witnessed a thinning of brain tissue and cell death. The concentration of the virus in the brain was limited, which inhibited further research on how Zika behaves once in the brain. The team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, however, injected the virus directly into the brains of fetal mice, and they determined that the virus targets neural progenitor cells and causes the fetal brain to shrink. Silk has been used in developing heat-stable vaccines and drugs, and now, researchers at Tufts University have demonstrated that silk can be used to maintain blood samples in low-resource settings. Blood-based diagnostics are only effective if certain proteins, which indicate either the presence of a pathogen or the immune system’s response to it, are preserved, however, heat and humidity can directly damage the proteins or cause enzymes in the blood to attack the proteins. Labs prefer that blood samples are refrigerated, although they can also be dried on special filter paper that can withstand heat but which often doesn’t hold enough blood for analysis. The team at Tufts created a silk-based powder and solution, combined it with blood samples, and allowed it to dry. The samples were then stored at high temperatures (72 to 113ºF) and remained viable for 84 days. GHTC member the International Vaccine Institute (IVI) announced last week that a single dose of the oral cholera vaccine Shanchol, currently administered in two-dose regimens, provides protection against the disease. The two-dose regimen provides 65 percent protection against cholera for at least five years, while the single dose demonstrated 40 percent protection against the disease for at least six months. While the two-dose regimen is preferred, the single dose could be appropriate for epidemics or in settings where the two-dose vaccine schedule is impractical. The study enrolled 204,700 individuals residing in the urban slums of Mirpur in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where cholera is endemic. In addition to reducing cases by 40 percent, the vaccine resulted in a 63 percent decrease in cases of severely dehydrating cholera.

Ebola is hard to diagnose in low-resource settings. It requires specialized laboratories and trained personnel, blood samples must remain in cooled containers when transported from health clinics to labs, and the test itself takes several hours. However, researchers at the American Chemical Society have developed a handheld device that can diagnose Ebola and determine a patient’s viral load in less than 40 minutes. The tool tests four samples at once—two from the patient and two controls—and requires a small amount of blood which can be obtained via finger prick. The team hopes that the device could also be used to monitor the virus in survivors' semen and breast milk, which is particularly critical as increasing evidence suggests the disease remains transmissible through bodily fluids long after a patient has recovered. During their time at the International Institute of Water and Environment in Burkina Faso, two students developed a shea butter–based soap to fight malaria, using lemongrass and other oils that are natural mosquito repellants and larvicides. The students received a US$25,000 grant from University of California Berkeley as part of the Global Social Ventures Competition and are now hosting a crowdfunding campaign to finance the testing and production of the soap. The inventors, Gerard Niyondiko of Burundi and Moctar Dembele of Burkina Faso, hope that with adequate funding the soap could save 100,000 lives by 2018. In addition to the benefits of using the soap—which repels mosquitos for several hours after use—the discarded soapy water is expected to kill mosquito larvae, as it is often thrown into the street or dumped in stagnant water. The bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis has been approved for use as a pesticide by the US Environmental Protection Agency, as it kills mosquito and blackfly larvae but does not harm humans. However, its use in mosquito control was expensive until Dr. Palmira Ventosilla, a microbiologist at the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia in Lima, Peru, devised an innovative system of delivery. Ventosilla has created kits for individuals, without any scientific training, to inoculate coconuts with the bacteria at home. The coconuts are then opened and left in small bodies of water (i.e., ponds), eliminating 90 percent of mosquito larvae within four days and keeping the water larvae-free for twelve days. The mosquitoes don’t develop resistance to the bacteria, as they do with chemical pesticides, and the bacteria is completely safe—even in human drinking water.