News

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. The GHTC released its 2012 policy report at a Capitol Hill briefing this week. The report provides recommendations for policymakers so they can continue to save lives around the world by supporting research and development for new global health products. This is the third annual report released by the GHTC. The Infectious Disease Research Institute announced that the first clinical trial for a new vaccine for visceral leishmaniasis has begun in Washington State. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever 4-in-1 flu vaccine. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has completed its review of final drafts of new federal scientific integrity policies. More than a dozen federal departments and agencies contributed to the process. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified in front of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations on Tuesday. She discussed the Global Health Initiative and how it’s “consolidating programs, increasing partners' capacities, and shifting responsibilities to help target our resources where they are most needed and [have the] highest impact.”

Emily Halnon is the Communications Associate at GHTC. Below is her reaction to Sustaining progress: Creating US policies to spur global health innovation, the third annual briefing hosted by GHTC. After attending GHTC’s annual briefing yesterday, it is nearly impossible, and arguably fully impossible, to come up with any reason as to why the US should not invest in global health research and development (R&D). The four panelists at the event, representing a range of US agencies and global health organizations, were full of countless examples that show what a remarkable difference US leadership in global health R&D has made around the world. The most obvious impact that this leadership has had is through saving millions of lives around the world through the development of health tools like drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. As Kemy Monahan, the deputy executive director of the Global Health Initiative and one of the panelists, said: US investments in global health R&D have saved “not just a few lives, [but] lots of lives.” Kevin De Cock, the director of the Center for Global Health at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stressed that due to the “indivisibility of domestic and foreign health,”investing in global health R&D is not just benefiting communities in remote regions overseas. It also improves the health of Americans and protects people all around the world from infectious diseases. Col. Peter Weina, deputy commander of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), reinforced the importance of global health R&D in our borderless society by listing numerous ways that WRAIR’s R&D successes—from producing the first influenza vaccine to starting work on almost every antimalarial in existence—have helped protect US troops from infectious diseases like malaria and leishmaniasis, and in turn, every community they reach across the globe. A theme that resonated through the message that every panelist delivered was the importance of US agency collaboration. Kemy Monahan emphasized the success that has come from the GHI encouraging US agencies to work together to maximize results. And Marc LaForce, the Director of the Meningitis Vaccine Project, talked about how MenAfriVac, a meningitis vaccine that is already saving countless lives in Africa, was made possible through the collaboration of several US agencies, including CDC, the National Institutes of Health, the US Agency for International Development, and the Food and Drug Adminstration. Marc also stressed the critical need for US funding to see this work to the finish line: “with sufficient funding, this epidemic is likely to be pretty much over in the next 10 years.” The speakers and Karen Goraleski, Executive Director of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and moderator at the briefing, also stressed the numerous domestic benefits of global health R&D in addition to the millions of lives saved across the globe. These benefits include increased national security, economic growth, and job creation. Goraleski emphasized that healthy populations produce stable economies, and countries with stable economies have stable governments, leading to a more secure global community. While there is no denying that this is a time of severe budget austerity, there was consensus in the room yesterday that investing in global health innovations is cost-effective and a smart decision for US policymakers. "These are difficult problems buy they are very, very solvable," said Senator Boozman at the GHTC annual briefing When US Senator John Boozman (R-AR) addressed the audience, he emphasized how far we’ve come, and how critical coordination between US agencies has been. “We’ve made tremendous progress. Working together, we can be proud of our progress.” As US policymakers consider whether to invest in global health R&D, they need to consider the countless achievements that yesterday’s speakers highlighted, and the fact that without a US commitment to the R&D needed to produce these lifesaving tools and technologies, many of these would not be possible. Col. Weina closed his remarks by stressing that the US cannot “rest on the laurels” of the past accomplishments made to address global health threats. A continued investment in global health R&D is critical to ensure that we continue to produce the game-changing innovations that are saving lives, fueling our economy, and providing good jobs across America.

This post, written by John Donnelly, originally appeared in the GlobalPost. Donnelly is a Washington, DC based writer. For those in the global health world—and there are many in the nation’s capital—one common question is why in tight budgetary times should Congress support spending on research and development (R&D) to fight diseases around the world. At a congressional briefing today put on by the Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC), a group that represents 40 global health research and advocacy organizations, several experts gave a variety of answers to that question. Katherine “Kemy” Monahan, deputy executive director of the Obama administration’s Global Health Initiative, said, “These global health programs are literally saving lives, and not just a few lives, lots of lives … We are [also] protecting Americans at home and traveling abroad from infectious diseases.” Col. Peter J. Weina, deputy commander of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, said, “We protect soldiers’ lives … Infectious diseases have ravaged military forces operating worldwide. … It also ravages populations we’ve worked with.” From 2003 to 2008, for instance, US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan had roughly 2,000 confirmed cases of leishmaniasis, a disease transmitted by the bite of a tiny sandfly. The disease causes a broad range of outcomes, some of them fatal. Then US Sen. John Boozman, a Republican from Arkansas, took the microphone from the back of the Kennedy Caucus Room at the Russell Senate Office Building, and gave his case for ongoing global health research. “It’s achievable stuff,” he said. “It represents real calamity. These are difficult problems, but they are very, very solvable. … You have a lot of support on Capitol Hill. We can be very, very proud of what has been accomplished so far.” A GHTC analysis of the Obama administration’s global health budget found a large number of decreases in funding compared to the previous year’s budget. Funding cuts were most glaring in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), neglected tropical disease programs, and several other programs at the US Agency for International Development (USAID). But the budget also included increases to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the GAVI Alliance. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were funded at the same level. “It’s a time of fiscal austerity,” Kevin De Cock, the director of CDC’s Center for Global Health, said in an interview after the briefing. “The cuts for global health programs might have been less than many people feared. There’s a need now for everyone in government to strive for greater efficiency and to find savings wherever they can in their budgets.” Karen A. Goraleski, the executive director of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene who was the moderator at the event, said global health R&D also has economic benefits at home, including the creation of thousands of jobs. “It’s fueling our economy,” she said. For Marc LaForce, director of the Meningitis Vaccine Project, the importance of research could be seen in the story of the fight against meningitis. He said last year’s results were enough to show how US research can have a major impact in saving lives. In West Africa, the often-fatal disease has been so prevalent that the area is referred to by the name of the disease. It’s the Meningitis Belt. His project, a partnership between the World Health Organization and PATH, which included earlier research done by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, produced a vaccine that cost less than 50 cents a dose. It was administered to 19 million people last fall in three West African countries. Usually, the countries report thousands of cases of meningitis. Last year, the countries reported fewer than a dozen—all from children who were not vaccinated. “The coverage rates with the vaccine have been extremely good,” LaForce said. “We are probably at the beginning of the end. With sufficient funding, this epidemic is likely to be pretty much over in the next 10 years.”