News

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) released a new report on its global health research and development (R&D) programs for fiscal year 2022 that includes unprecedented insight into the product development programs the agency supported—and highlights the need for additional, dedicated resources for global health research.Why it matters: The report gives insight into an agency that is a key sponsor of global health product development.Due to a lack of commercial incentive for industry investment, most global health research is supported by public funders, most notably the US government.Several US agencies support global health research, but USAID is the only agency with a mandate to improve global health and development. The agency excels at pushing products through the end of the research pipeline and advancing tools to suit the needs of people in low-resource settings.What’s new: This report includes an unprecedented 13-page appendix detailing USAID’s individual product-level investments. By our count, USAID supported at least 59 products in 2021 covering multiple health areas and product types.By the numbers: In 2021, USAID spent US$165 million in baseline funding and $50 million in COVID-19 supplemental funding on health product development and research to assess the best way to implement new products and practices.Research spending from baseline funds increased slightly over the prior year (+$4 million) — but continued to decline as a proportion of total global health spending. In 2021, proportionate spending on research dropped slightly to 5.1 percent, continuing a years-long pattern. If the trend continues, GHTC estimates that proportionate spending on R&D will drop to 4.2 percent by 2026 unless Congress passes a policy like the Supporting Innovative Global Health Technologies (SIGHT) Fund to direct more dedicated funding to R&D.Our take: GHTC applauds the release of the report and the additional detail provided by USAID. We call policymakers’ attention to the continued need for additional, dedicated resources for global health research at USAID that this report exposes.

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.A recent study found that an inexpensive, widely available antibiotic could sharply reduce the number of pregnant individuals in low- and middle-income countries who develop sepsis in childbirth, which is among the three leading causes of maternal deaths globally. The study, conducted in seven countries mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, showed that a single dose of the drug azithromycin during labor cut the risk of the mother developing sepsis by around 35 percent. Azithromycin is a generic drug, it has a long half-life, and it does not require refrigeration, making it an inexpensive and easy-to-deliver tool that could be widely adopted even in low-resource settings.Following the recent discovery of an outbreak of H5N1 on a Spanish mink farm, scientists have identified that the strain of the virus behind the outbreak contains a mutation that could make the virus more adaptable to mammals. While experts have stressed that there is no need panic, the outbreak is a reminder of the importance of disease surveillance and preparedness measures, especially as a new variant of H5N1 has spread among bird populations and spilled over into humans in recent years. Scientists have not detected any transmission of this latest strain among humans, although the mutation could increase the potential risk.Fungal pathogens are a growing threat to global public health, according to experts and the World Health Organization (WHO), which published a list of priority fungal pathogens last year. Resistance is exacerbating the threat. For example, Candida auris, Aspergillus fumigatus, and Cryptococcus neoformans, which WHO ranks among the four highest priority threats, have all shown resistance to current tools. There are also no vaccines for the top four critical infections identified. As aging populations and the climate crisis contribute to growing antimicrobial resistance, there is a strong need for improving surveillance capacity and investing in developing diagnostics, medicines, and other interventions for fungal infections, which currently account for less than 1.5 percent of all infectious disease research spending, according to WHO.

As is tradition, the World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Board (EB) kicked off what promises to be another packed multilateral calendar. While much has remained the same, this year’s forum also ushered in noteworthy shifts in deliberations, dynamics, and dialogue that advocates should be aware of. Here are GHTC’s top takeaways from the week: 1. EB shrinks space for civil society engagement. As civil society delegates entered the halls of WHO for the EB for the first time since 2020, they were confronted with a harsh reality: The ability for non-state actors to meaningfully participate in these meetings is at an all-time low. New protocols had been introduced limiting delegation size and physical and structural changes put in place that left civil society literally on the outside looking in. Gone are the days when civil society could be physically present in the assembly room to follow the proceedings. Instead, advocates were relegated to a small, hot, and stuffy overflow room, more akin to a small press room, located far away from the official proceedings, hampering their ability to connect with officials and country delegates, which is often the most valuable part of the week. As EB participation and the number of agenda items have ballooned, WHO has also imposed new constraints on civil society statements, which have hit non-state actors particularly hard. WHO has tried to force civil society organizations to come together and develop single constituency statements for certain agenda items, a challenge that often further dilutes specific technical feedback from a diverse set of voices as various WHO-accredited institutions try to reconcile diverging views into a single, cohesive communication. Individual interventions are now reduced to just one minute, and they must be uploaded to a WHO database prior to the start of that agenda item. Apart from the challenge of distilling feedback and technical input down to around 100 words, the requirement to upload in advance prohibits advocates from rebutting issues that arise during debate or meaningfully influencing the decision making in real time. Other United Nations (UN) agencies, such as the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization have far more robust and meaningful civil society engagement processes that could serve as better models for WHO to emulate. 2. Debate on WHO’s work in health emergencies goes into the next round. Global politics tend to spill over into the parliamentary debates at EB, and this year was no different with the war in Ukraine creating serious tension between western allies and Russia. Much of the debate surrounding WHO’s role in health emergencies was derailed by several testy back-and-forths between delegations, leading to disruptions and little progress on key agenda items. A new ten-point proposal from WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to improve preparedness and response to health emergencies also received mixed reviews from WHO member states, with many warning the WHO secretariat not to move ahead of member states and the already ongoing processes to amend the International Health Regulations and negotiate a pandemic accord.  The latter did make waves at this EB, as the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) published a “zero-draft,” that included a few surprises. The draft features some strong, equity-focused language, as well as calls for building and strengthening country regulatory, manufacturing, and innovative research and development (R&D) capacities for pandemic-related products. Surprisingly, it also features numerous callouts and provisions focused on intellectual property, including incentivizing relevant transfers of technology and know-how, forcing manufacturers that receive public funding to disclose prices for pandemic-related products, and time-bound waivers on medical countermeasures that can accelerate or scale up manufacturing, signaling the key battlegrounds for upcoming negotiations.  The biggest stunner, though, is a brand-new section focused on creating a new WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (the “PABS System”) that would collect and equitably distribute a portion of all globally produced vaccines and other medical products during pandemics. According to the draft, 10 percent of total global production of pandemic products would be allocated to WHO, with half donated and half bought at an “accessible” price. Now, deliberations on the specific provisions will begin in earnest ahead of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May, with the INB hosting two meetings in the next few months to debate individual chapters of the draft.  3. Implementation of the clinical trials resolution enters its next phase as member states argue about scope. Member states also debated the implementation of last year’s clinical trials resolution during the session on global health emergencies. Delegates noted the progress WHO had made over the past year in leading consultations and mapping the current clinical trial networks landscape. A few countries underscored the importance of inclusiveness and equity and called for greater technical support from WHO. On the contrary, in response to a WHO proposal to develop a complementary self-assessment tool to measure the maturity of the clinical trial ecosystem at national and international levels, the United States and United Kingdom instead urged the WHO secretariat to keep its focus limited to the scope of the actual resolution until more progress is achieved. The WHO is now set to move forward with a process to develop draft guidelines for clinical trials, with the help of experts and member states, that is expected to be in place by WHA. 4. Universal health coverage (UHC) reemerges as a priority from COVID-19 slumber. In 2019, UHC was the “it” topic of global health. It featured prominently on the agenda of WHO meetings and the UN held a high-level meeting on the subject to advance a new framework to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Then came the pandemic, and focus and attention on the topic slipped. This year, UHC is back on the map, having featured heavily at this year's EB.  During the broader discussion on UHC, WHO member states highlighted the importance of primary health care and health system strengthening, as well as considered and ultimately passed a resolution on strengthening diagnostics capacity. The resolution urges member states to address a range of diagnostic issues, including increasing local production, streamlining regulatory approaches, and addressing access barriers. It also calls for greater investment in diagnostic R&D and more systemic funding of capacity-building infrastructure for diagnostics, as well as urges WHO to enact specific technical changes to facilitate and catalyze diagnostic development.  The next couple of months will continue to deliver multilateral developments at a breakneck pace, and given the interlinkages between the many multilateral processes underway, it will be vital for advocates to understand the full landscape of possible changes to the global health architecture. While the dynamics may be shifting, it is encouraging to see that the research agenda is present throughout these different dialogues, both in Geneva and beyond. 

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 week, CEPI announced a partnership with Dutch biotechnology company, 20Med, to support the development of technology that could eliminate the need for frozen storage of mRNA vaccines. The initial investment of up to US$850,000 will go toward a proof-of-concept of the company’s bio-responsive polymeric nanoparticle platform technology. If effective, the technology could help make major strides in access to mRNA vaccines, which transformed the global response to COVID-19 and have the potential to address a number of other diseases but require cold storage, which creates access challenges to these products, especially in low resource settings.A recent study in The Lancet found that an experimental vaccine against Marburg virus was safe and produced an immune response in a small, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. The candidate, cAd3-Marburg, was developed at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Vaccine Research Center and uses a vaccine platform called cAd3, which previously demonstrated a good safety profile in investigational vaccines developed for Ebola virus and Sudan virus by the center. Further trials of the vaccine candidate are planned in Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, and the United States, which could propel the candidate as a viable tool in the response to outbreaks of Marburg virus.2022 saw a handful of milestones in the fight against neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) with Togo becoming the first country to eliminate four of the diseases and Malawi eliminating trachoma, among other achievements. However, to address the major challenges that remain, funding for the research and development (R&D) of improved treatments and diagnostics will be crucial. New medicines to treat NTDS are urgently needed as current treatments medicines are often ineffective, intolerable, or entirely absent. While promising innovations for treatments against sleeping sickness and visceral leishmaniasis, among others, are in the pipeline, collaboration and partnerships will be necessary to catalyze further innovation and development.